Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Source on Cook Islands and Niue as independent states

This source: [1] states they are independent states. I hope this settles things for those who have asked for more sources on the matter.Ladril (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It also noted a "quasi-federal relationship" with NZ. Treating it just as greyly as we are then. CMD (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

These countries are unique and we are best to put them into a separate category. The wording of the NZ legislation is the same as UK legislation when colonies achieved independence after the Second World War. The UK parliament ceded authority to legislate for them. Ironically the UK did not cede authority to legislate for NZ until after CI and Niue became sovereign. The title of the monarch as Queen of NZ is a red herring. That is her title under NZ law, and when colonies became independent from the UK, their head of state was called the Queen of the UK until altered.

While NZ considers them NZ citizens, they consider them nationals of their sovereign states. Normally for dependent territories it would be the other way around. Also, the states became "associated states", which according to the UN implies independence.

However NZ does not recognize them as independent and says that if they take up a seat in the UN or exchange ambassadors with other countries, they will see that as a declaration of independence and revoke their NZ citizenship. That would take away their privilege of working in Australia and remove their Commonwealth citizenship which provides a limited privilege to work in the UK and other Commonwealth nations.

TFD (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

CMD: I did not post this to request a change in the way they are portrayed, but only to contribute a source. As you mention, not everyone is equally willing to accept "free association" as equivalent to "desiring independence". Ladril (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD: the CI and Niue have established relations with other countries at ambassadorial level. Also, saying that "NZ does not recognize them as independent" is perhaps a bit too strong a wording for the article. NZ sees them as having attained self-government in a status different from independence on their own accord. That is, they were free to choose separate statehood but to retain strong ties to another state. At least one scholar has likened this CI and Niue case to the relationship of European microstates to larger states (Monaco to France, Liechtenstein to Switzerland, Andorra to France and Spain, etc.). This is why the issue is not easy to deal with in one keystroke.

As for the "Queen of NZ", the matter is not that simple either. As described by Andrew Townend, the Realm of NZ (which is basically the Monarchy of NZ) would still be a valid legal concept if NZ were to become a republic, because it is enshrined in the constitutions of the CI and Niue. Ladril (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your link is not a reliable source, it is an undergraduate paper, and furthermore its author provides no sources or arguments for his belief that the Elizabeth II would continue to be head of state of the CI and Nieu. The CI constitution says, "Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand shall be the Head of State of the Cook Islands." It NZ replaces the current Queen, then the successor will become head of state of CI and Nieu. That is clear from the Perth Agreement, which determined a UK succession act would be valid for determining the head of state of all Commonwealth that designate the Queen of the UK as their head of state. Can you provide any sources that say that CI or Niue have exchanged ambassadors with any other country? TFD (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Newly-appointed Ambassador to Cook Islands Mr Wang Lutong Presented the Copy of the Letter of Credence"; "Belgium’s ambassador to the Cook Islands..." TDL (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The Cook Islands does not have an ambassador to any other country[2] and does not have ambassadors from other countries.

If NZ were to become a republic, the president of NZ would be called in CI and Nieu the King or Queen of NZ. In the same sense, a president of the UK would be the King or Queen of each Commonwealth Realm, except the three that the UK legislated to have their own succession laws (Canada, Australia and NZ.) It has no bearing on whether or not any of those countries are independent. You can read that NZ says the CI is not independent.[3]

TFD (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The relations between CI/Niue and other states are at ambassadorial level. Even if there is no exchange of ambassadors, the official diplomatic relations are set up. As for what would happen if Nz were to become a republic, that has been established using reliable sources [4]. The Realm would continue to exist with CI and Niue only, until these states chose to reform their own constitutions. Ladril (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

They are the ambassadors to New Zealand. Again your source for what would happen in the event of NZ becoming a republic fails rs. It is an essay by an undergraduate student who does not explain his reasoning or provide any sources that support his opinion. TFD (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you are misinformed. The relations established with states other than NZ are at ambassadorial level (see for example [5]) and many ambassadors to NZ are concurrently - and explicitly - accredited to the CI and Niue. As for the Townend article, it seems to be a fairly respected article on the subject. In the absence of other, better sources, I suppose it can be considered reliable. Ladril (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, under their relationship with NZ, NZ handles their foreign affairs except in specific areas, which is the same relation that other countries have with their dependent territories. Your source is by an undergraduate, i.e., someone who has not completed their university degree. We do have competing ideas. Malcolm Turnbull for example said that "the Queen, referred to throughout our [Australian] constitution and of course it is referring to Queen Victoria, and is defined as being Queen Victoria her heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom."[6] The Perth Agreement confirms that.

Also, not that the Royal Succession Act 2013 (NZ) does not mention the CI or Nieu. If NZ cannot legislate for succession of the head of state for CI and Nieu, then they would have requested them to pass their own succession acts.

TFD (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"NZ handles their foreign affairs except in specific areas." That's not what the sources are telling us. CI and Niue conduct their foreign relations (and have foreign policy independent from NZ) except when they request NZ's assistance in this area. This is not exclusive of the CI and Niue; Liechtenstein, for example, has most of its foreign relations conducted by Switzerland on its behalf (and until very recently, Monaco had a similar relationship to France). As has been established by multiple sources, ceding responsibilities to another state does not mean you are not sovereign. AS for the source, it is whatwe have to work with, unless you have a better one that deals with the specific case we are discussing. The one you show does not mention NZ, CI or Niue. Ladril (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It says in the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 (NZ), "5. External affairs and defence - Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of the Cook Islands, those responsibilities to be discharged after consultation by the Prime Minister of New Zealand with the [Prime Minister] of the Cook Islands."[7] The NZ government has said on several occasions that if the CI became a member of the UN or exercised its international personality beyond what NZ found acceptable, it would be seen as a declaration of independence.[8] No one questions that CI could do this, but in their current agreement they cannot. So at least from the view of NZ they are not an independent country. Anyway, that is what we seem to have agreed, that the CI and Nieu show aspects of both independent nations and dependent states, and it is debatable which they are, even if we might find one argument more persuasive than another. TFD (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we must either create a unique section for CI/Niue in the List of sovereign states, or delete it from the list with deleting point (b) criteria because I think it is not a good way to determine a state. Declarative theory must be in the list, and there will be 204 states but not 206. I agree, CI/Niue are very-very independent and self-governing, but as we can see in its constitution act they don't want to be called separate sovereign states. They are not dependent territories too as they have a unique status. Yes, many Wikipedians think that it was included because of recognition of CI/Niue by some countries like Japan. But it is really strange: if I'll create my own microstate and I will recognize my neighbors as sovereign state, even if they don't wish to be such. Please think about it, the constitution theory doesn't determine state as sovereign. User02062000 (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The declarative theory is questionable anyway. Although the U.S. recognized Canada in 1926, it rejected inviting it and the theory would not have recognized Canada as a sovereign state. And Canada, Australia and NZ (including CI and Nieu did not obtain full formal independence from the UK until the 1980s, when Westminster ceded its authority to legislate for them. TFD (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Both theories are questionable on some grounds. Yet both are referenced in textbooks of international law as central to the topic of sovereignty. An encyclopedia article has to be based on scholarly literature, not on ad hoc criteria chosen by editors. Ladril (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not say we should exclude them, merely pointed out the problems with one of the theories, which is recognized in reliable sources. User02062000's point by the way is observed in Micronations, pp. 5-6.[9]I would appreciate too if you could stop being condescending. TFD (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not mean to sound condescending. The problem is that this argument is way too repetitive. Maybe I'm a bad fit for it. Bye and good luck. Ladril (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue revisited

User:Soffredo is making a mess of several articles, trying to push their "Niue is a sovereign state" POV. See [10], [11] and [12] for example. Past discussions on this talk page have come to the consensus that while there is a case to be made that they are sovereign, this is by no means undisputed, so labeling them as such without any qualifiers goes against WP:NPOV. As such, I believe that other articles should follow the lead on this. Unfortunately, Soffredo seems intent on edit warring to make these changes to various articles against consensus. TDL (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There is proof that they are sovereign. You are removing cited work. And how is it's sovereign status disputed? [Soffredo] 01:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Niue's constitution isn't "proof" that they are sovereign. That is a WP:PRIMARY source. Massachusetts's Constitution says: "The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state;" Just because they say they are sovereign, doesn't make it true.

Whether they are fully sovereign or not is quite controversial. It seems like we've discussed this with you ad nauseam. There are still two threads above (#Niue_and_Cook_Islands_-_July_2013 and #Cook_Islands_and_Niue_revisited) which you started which detail the complexity of their situation. Also, there is an entire archive page at Talk:List of sovereign states/Cook Islands and Niue which all past discussion on this issue. Please read these discussion and don't make controversial changes to other articles which first achieving a consensus. TDL (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If their statuses as a sovereign state is disputed, then why are they listed as states here instead of territories of New Zealand? [Soffredo] 14:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the article? They ARE also listed as territories of New Zealand. Also, Somaliland is obviously disputed, but it is listed as a state. We need to give WP:DUE weight to all the sources. You can't just pick your favourite POV and dismiss all others. There is a case to be made that they are sovereign, so that case should be presented. There is also a case to be made that they are a dependency of New Zealand. That case also needs to be presented. Given the complexity of the situation, going to every article that Cook Islands and Niue is listed on and adding "sovereign" after their name without an accurate explanation of the situation is not a NPOV way of presenting the facts. TDL (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

They're sovereign, as they have established diplomatic relations with other sovereign UN member states. No other territories(Tokelau, British Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico etc.) are capable of doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.49.238 (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make them sovereign states. The article on Niue states that "its status as a freely-associated state has been accepted by UN organs as equivalent to independence for international law purposes" Equivalent to independence for whatever purposes is not the same as independence perse. Both articles also state that "defence and foreign affairs are the responsibility of New Zealand". These are not the hallmarks of fully sovereign states (sorry for copy pasting my remarks from another talk page). So all relations of these countries with other states are still under the formal auspices of NZ. And I bet the ambassadors and consuls are all sent and given their letters of credence by the Queen in right of New Zealand. Who is the head of these countries in exactly that capacity. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

About the criteria for inclusion in the article considering Niue and the Cook Islands and other issues involving their status, I would like to make a few remarks.

-Both states have declared that in their execution of their right to self determination they stopped short of declaring independence.

-Some on this page have argued that this has changed. They have done so on the basis of remarks made in several documents, the relevance of which is debatable, and -off the cut- remarks made by some functionaries. It has however not been established that the original take on the matter has changed at any given point where the two countries are concerned. There has been no declaration of independence, just documents in which policy changes have been agreed with New Zealand without any reference to a formal change in status.

-It has been said that some foreign powers have recognised these countries as independent states. These are (as far as I can see) only supported by reports of unknown origin in which the Prime-Minister of one of the countries thanked another country for the recognition of independence (i.c.) Japan. We have no declarations by the countries themselves explicitly stating that they recognise the two countries as fully sovereign and independent. Which is what recognition is ultimately about. It is a discretionary right of the country granting it. I have noticed that mention of recognition has dissappeared from the article.

-The status of the countries as being in free association with New Zealand still stands and has not been altered.

-Both countries have the capacity to conduct treaties with other powers. They now do so without political interference of New Zealand but still under formal auspices of New Zealand and that country is still ultimately responsible for defence and foreign relations. Treaties are made in the name of the Queen (in right of) New Zealand.

-The diplomatic relations with other countries that the two countries have, are conducted in the name of the Queen (in right of) New Zealand, who gives letters of credence to diplomats. Not in the name any distinct body in Niue or the Cook Islands. Also therefore the establishment of such relations does not implicitly or explicitly imply full recognition as sovereign independent states. Since foreign powers receive letters of credence from the Queen (in right of) New Zealand.

-Regognition by the UN that these countries posses a status equivalent to independence fore some purposses, or membership in UN organisations are not relevant. "The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government". Furthermore equivalent to independence does not equal independence as such.

-Both countries are in the jurisdiction of the Governor-General of New-Zealand. The Queens representatives formally answer to him.

-I do not believe that the criteria for inclusion in the list have been satisfactorally met. For that we need an unequivolent declaration by both states and New Zealand that the status of the two countries have changed since free association began. Not documents of varying relevance with implicite remarks by whatever authorities choose to make them during meeting or lectures or when discussing financial audits or fishery. In other words a declaration of independence by which of course the free association ends or is radically redefined. I have seen no such documents being put forward in the discussion. I doubt if they will be forthcoming. We also need unequivical declarations by foreign powers that recognise both countries as sovereign independent states. What we have seen up till now are reported remarks made during lectures and meetings, not by the foreign powers themselves but by a CI functionary.

-The very fact that this has been and is discussed (not only on this page) is also relevant in my opinion. Baring territorial disputes, which are not taking place here, the sovereign and independent status of a country should be a well known fact. Like Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic. That is not the case for these two countries, while it is for all the others. That should tell us enough about how straightforward this situation is (not). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Many states have never declared independence, ie Japan. And just because they are an associated state, does not mean they can't be sovereign. See for example the Compact of Free Association states. Also, there are official documents: "The two Governments have agreed to develop friendly relations and cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty". It is obviously not clear whether these states are sovereign or not, but there is a case to be made that they are, and as per WP:DUE we need to present that case. We should explain the disputes/complexities in the text, not just remove them from the article. TDL (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Skim reading, most of this is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the criteria for inclusion.

The part after "I do not believe that the criteria for inclusion in the list have been satisfactorally met" is followed by a misunderstanding of the criteria for inclusion. By the standards proposed, New Zealand itself very clearly does not belong on the list, because no statement meeting the conditions described has ever been made regarding New Zealand's relationship with the United Kingdom. There is no requirement for a declaration of independence in the criterion, and no requirement that any point be demonstrated other than the the state "consider themselves sovereign" and be considered to meet the standard by reliable sources.

In terms of the second rule on diplomatic recognition. There is nothing to prevent us from using any reliable source to demonstrate diplomatic recognition. If there were reason to doubt the statements made by those sources, then something stronger might be necessary, but there is not. The standard claimed here is higher than we actually impose or need to impose.

And finally, there is a misunderstanding that both criteria have to be met. The rule is deliberately "or" - one rule or the other is fine. We have sources to demonstrate the second, so whether the first is met is academic.

I note finally that the contents of Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic appear to bear no relation to to the point that seems to be being made. Kahastok talk 18:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Compact of Free Association describes the situation between the USA and their former Trust territories who entered into it already being sovereign states. The NZ versus CI and Niue situation is different. Many ancient states have left no declaration of Independence as such. However one would expect a state that came about in recent times to have at least made a statement about its status (as Japan does in its constitution). The fact that the situation is ambiguous should at least be mentioned in the article if the two countries are mentioned in it. In that sense the description should be adapted as the very least. Again, I wouldn't have included them in the list, but if they are, ambiguity should be acknowledged I think. On the subject of "the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty" I would remark that this is the basis for all good international relations (as these clearly are). One only wonders what sovereignty is meant. I believe that in some countries, and I think that includes the Netherlands, recognition of a foreign state requires a law, not just as the source says "exchanged notes". Since I am Dutch, I have asked the Dutch Ministry of foreign affairs about relations with the Cook Islands and how these arrangements were made. I might get an answer shortly. On the site of the Ministry of FA, I can only find one bilateral Treaty between the Netherlands and the Cook Islands abd that's about taxes [13].

[[Kahastok I did say I would mention other issues than the criteria for inclusion. One of them clearly is that they "consider themselves sovereign (through a declaration of independence or some other means)". And as you say there follows "or are recognised as a sovereign state by at least one UN member state". One wonders why a UN member state would recognise a country that has not established itself as an independent state. You say that New Zealand itself wouldn't apply "because no statement meeting the conditions described has ever been made regarding New Zealand's relationship with the United Kingdom" I don't think that's right. New Zealand has clearly established itself as a sovereign state by means of the Statute of Westminster and it's constitution. I think that when these countries stay on the list we will at least have to deal with the ambiguity of the situation. At present that is (imo) lacking. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Gerard says:
"The Compact of Free Association describes the situation between the USA and their former Trust territories who entered into it already being sovereign states." No, actually, it says that the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau entered into free association status via a sovereign act of self-determination (you can review here: [14]. This is exactly the same thing that has been said many times over for the CI and Niue in multiple legal documents.
"The NZ versus CI and Niue situation is different." Indeed. It is a very special case.
"Many ancient states have left no declaration of Independence as such." And many recent ones have neither (and when they have, it is not always considered to be legally valid). What established the sovereignty of East Timor, for example, was not the unilateral declaration of independence they made in 1975, but the Constitution they enacted in 2002. Same for Andorra in 1993. It is the specific circumstances of each country's history that define how they achieve sovereign status.
"However one would expect a state that came about in recent times to have at least made a statement about its status (as Japan does in its constitution)." The debate about whether the CI and Niue have made explicit their intention to be recognized as sovereign states has been had many times over already. It also took many years to resolve, and it's not going to be changed every time a user comes along to question it. Review the long discussion under [15] please.
I'm sorry it's my turn to be on the grumpy, protective side of a consensus about a Wikipedia page here, but this matter has been established after a long process of deliberation. Ladril (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of a country or wannabee country in the world that isn't absolutely clear about whether it regards itself as independent or not. The word "or" in the criteria for inclusion isn't necessary to tackle that issue in my opinion. Even when lacking a declaration of Independence given at the time the state was born, every state that regards itself as independent has by now some document affirming it's independence. It might be the Constitution in which the nature of that state is described or even an treaty in which the founding of a state is agreed between signatories. There is no document that states this equivocally for Niue and the CI's. On the contrary there is a statement that says they stop short of using the word independence. It has not been explicitly revoked. It has come to my attention however (through the Belgian Foreign Office whom I have asked about their relations with the Cook Islands) that recognition by foreign powers of the Cook islands is conditional to the terms pointed out in a document called Joint Centenary Declaration of the principles of the relationship between New Zealand and the Cook Islands, which sheds some light on the basis of these recognitions and what it is that is recognized. The document (as far as I've seen it up till now) seems to indicate that the CI are still in a sort of limbo where full independence is concerned. It deals with external relations, citizenship and sovereignty. It states that where external relations are concerned, the CI's operate as a sovereign state but that when it comes to citizenship and the position of the sovereign towards the CI's (two rather crucial aspects of what independence is about) there are still New Zealand institutions involved and even some strings attached as pointed out in the 1973 letter of understanding that is quoted in the declaration. On the scale between dependence and independence, the CI's have moved almost fully to the independence side of the scale but there are still some residual issues that would raise questions about full independence. Perhaps the entries for these two states should mention something about this situation. About the status quo that you are protective about, the consensus was about inclusion in the list per the criteria stated in the article. Not, if I remember correctly, about the question of independence or these countries intention to be recognized as sovereign states (which arguably is not the same thing). It didn't took a long time to reach that consensus for nothing and it also shouldn't be surprising that questions keep arising as the whole matter remains ambiguous. If it weren't for the use of the word "or" in the qualifications for inclusion in the article, both countries wouldn't even qualify. I'm not challenging the inclusion at this point. I'm merely arguing for a clear disclaimer. Wikipedia shouldn't have egg on it's face when these countries actually declare full independence in a few years time. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the "hindsight edits" to my above entry btw. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The above is long and difficult to read so I haven't looked at it in detail. But some points I noticed.

First, the point that "[e]ven when lacking a declaration of Independence given at the time the state was born, every state that regards itself as independent has by now some document affirming it's independence". I do not accept this. New Zealand itself is (again) a good example. You cited the Statute of Westminster and Constitution Act 1986 before, but neither affirms New Zealand's independence - we even have an article on the subject to explain the issues, which puts cultural independence some time in the 1970s. There are plenty of other states in similar positions. There are also plenty of constitutions out there of non-sovereign entities.

If it weren't for the use of the word "or" in the qualifications for inclusion in the article, both countries wouldn't even qualify.

Maybe not - but part of the point is that there are differing definitions and we ought not favour one or the other. And they aren't the only states that we might have difficulty with if we made it "and".

I'm not challenging the inclusion at this point. I'm merely arguing for a clear disclaimer.

Could you provide a proposal please? This might make it clearer what you want. Kahastok talk 15:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Kahastok talk. Well, I mentioned the Statute of Westminster because in that document was laid out what the status of the countries involved would be from then on. Basically equal to the UK. If you want me to propose something I will look into that in the coming days. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Gerard said: "Even when lacking a declaration of Independence given at the time the state was born, every state that regards itself as independent has by now some document affirming it's independence...There is no document that states this equivocally for Niue and the CI's." But there is: Japan and the CI signed a Joint Communique in which the former agrees to recognize the latter as an independent state. That is a document with the validity of a law. Likewise, Niue and the PRC signed a joint Communique establishing relations and mutually recognizing their sovereignty. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about that. Also, as Kahastok mentioned, there are many countries that have moved into independence without enacting a formal declaration.

"The document (as far as I've seen it up till now) seems to indicate that the CI are still in a sort of limbo where full independence is concerned." Indeed, they are. Nobody is denying that. But this is a list of de facto sovereign states, not de jure sovereign states. You can certainly say that, like Palestine, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Somaliland, etc. the CI and Niue have de facto moved into being independent states, even if de jure the situation is still highly ambiguous. But this list includes all the states in the world that are de facto independent, and the CI and Niue are.

I'll be happy to read your proposal, BTW. But keep in mind that there are already many more caveats on the page about CI and Niue inclusion, even in relation to other highly controversial cases such as Northern Cyprus and Karabakh. Ladril (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ladril. I am in the business of writing one. In the mean time something happened. This link, obviously from a government source, acknowledging Dutch recognition of the Cook Islands prompted me to write to the Dutch Ministry of foreign affairs about the status of Dutch recognition of the CI's. They wrote back "Thanks for your question dd. 30th of October about the official status of the Cook Islands. The Netherlands does not recognize the Cook Islands as a fully independent and sovereign state. The Cook Islands enjoy a high degree of self rule in what is called free association with New Zealand. The arrangement of which is part of New Zealand constitutional law." I was taken aback a little by this communication and wondered about the wishful thinking that may be involved in some of the sources mentioned in this whole discussion because it clearly goes against what it says in the source quoted. On the other hand it might also shed some light upon what limits the [Joint Centenary Declaration of the principles of the relationship between New Zealand and the Cook Islands, on which's terms recognitions of the Cook Islands is conditional, sets in the eyes of at least some of the countries granting 'recognition'. Anyway, I will be back with a proposal concerning these matters. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering how controversial this topic is, I think it is a good idea for me to prepare a proposal of my own. Ladril (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is what I have made so far where the Cook Islands are concerned:

A country in free association with New Zealand, The Cook Islands operate as an independent state, where its foreign relations are concerned, as arranged in a Joint Declaration with New Zealand. Dependent on the conditions in that document, it has relations with 41 other states. The Cook Islands is a member of multiple UN agencies with full treaty making capacity. The Monarch of New Zealand is its head. It's inhabitants have New Zealand nationality. The status of the country is therefore exceptional. It is often described as fully independent and sometimes as de-facto independent as it is seen lacking some properties of a fully independent state.

This is just for the CI's because the joint declaration mentioned, only covers that country. I'm curious Ladril, to see your take on this.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"The CI operate as an independent state, where its foreign relations are concerned..." Erroneous. NZ surrendered all its legal rights of control over CI when the country became a self-governing state. It doesn't just concern foreign relations but domestic affairs as well.

"Dependent on the conditions of that document..." Erroneous and misleading. The CI started having diplomatic relations with other states before the Joint Declaration was promulgated. Moreover, there is nothing in the diplomatic notes between CI and other countries that condition the relations to NZ approval. New Zealand is not even mentioned in them.

"...it is seen lacking some properties of a fully independent state". I believe this wording needs to be toned down a bit, as the problem is not that CI lacks the properties of a fully independent state (on the contrary, it has them all). The problem is that there is a lack of legal definition about the independent status of the CI. I refer you to this good paper on the matter as a source: [16]. See page 120: "In other words, New Zealand is unable to inform the United Nations that the Cook Islands has a new de jure status, until this has been „approved‟ by the Cook Islands – which has not actually happened.This argument is supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade‟s view that “free association is a status distinct from that of full independence in that it allows the Cook Islands to maintain New Zealand citizenship, while administering its own affairs”. Consequently, (in New Zealand‟s view) New Zealand‟s only response to questions about its Territory‟s status can be that the Cook Islands (and Niue) are constitutionally still in free-association but have competence over their domestic and external affairs."

See also page 121 in the same document: "Consequently, could the Cook Islands (or Niue) be considered a „sovereign state‟ while remaining in free association with New Zealand? Both territorial entities have a permanent (although declining due to emigration) population and a defined territory. Each also has, by virtue of the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 and the Niue Constitution Act 1974 respectively, an independent government, and both have entered into relationships with and been legally recognised by other States. In line with General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), New Zealand has also transferred „all powers‟ to the Cook Islands and Niue. This implies that the Cook Islands and Niue are both „States‟ in international law, even if there are difficulties in arguing that they are universally recognised as sovereign with unencumbered international legal personalities."

So this is where the crux of the matter lies, I believe. Not in whether CI and Niue do not possess the attributes of a state, or whether they are recognized as states. It lies in the fact that the fact that the terms of the association have not been defined so as to unequivocally state that CI and Niue are sovereign states. This is what I believe we must strive to reflect better in both this article and the dependent territory article somehow. Thoughts? Ladril (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I went forward and made some changes to the article based on the above source. Does this satisfy you, Gerard? Ladril (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I know that Niue and CI self rule encompasses more than just foreign relations and that domestic issues were also surrendered by New Zealand. That last aspect however is not crucial to the status of independence. Lots of non-independent territories have full or almost full domestic autonomy, which is why I only mentioned functioning as an independent state where foreign relations were concerned. The Joint declaration was indeed issued after the CI's already had foreign relations with other countries and full treaty closing capabilities. The document however refers back to a letter of understanding of 1973 and is partly based on that. Recognition by foreign powers however seems to be based upon the content of that document. At least the Belgian foreign ministry mentioned that to me, while the Dutch foreign ministry seems to regard the arrangements made between NZ and the CI's as a part of NZ constitutional law. In that respect I think the source you mentioned is valuable and it's good it was added to the entry. It attests that the CI's and Niue must unilaterally decide their status before it can be said to have profoundly changed. About the (lacking) properties of a fully sovereign state, the text in the article mentions the Nationality question and (I believe) more importantly the status of the sovereign over both countries. It's defined (in the CI's constitution and elsewhere) as being the sovereign of another country (i.c. New Zealand). Independent countries have their sovereignty (whether exercised by a monarch or otherwise) internal and do not recognize foreign institutions as sovereign. That last thing is, in my eyes at least, one of the more important aspects of the matter. It is at least also a factor that would pose a difficulty "in arguing that they are universally recognized as sovereign with unencumbered international legal personalities". The source you provide however has good arguments. About the text you added to the article. I like it because it's concise and to the point. My only qualm is the phrase "It shares a head of state with New Zealand as well as having shared citizenship". That could somehow imply that joint institutions were set up between the countries, while in fact it are the New Zealand Institutions that are used for these purposes. Which is why I used "The Monarch of New Zealand is its head. It's inhabitants have New Zealand nationality". Other than that I think it's fine. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to answer one of your points quickly; the terms "shared head of state" and "shared citizenship" are not original research. They have been used by scholars of international law such as Andrew Townend (uses "shared head of state" here [17]) and Tony Angelo (uses "shared citizenship" here: [18]). Remember that the arrangement is not the same as in the Netherlands and its constituent countries. NZ considers CI and Niue to be countries lying outside the reach of its own laws (according to the 1983 Letters Patent you cite). This where the term "shared" comes from. 140.254.146.111 (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Ladril (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ladril. I didn't mean to imply that your phrases are OR. Just that the matter could be explained more clearly by inferring that it are New Zealand institutions that we are talking about. A fact that is of some interest to the matter at hand. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In the sense of "The head of state of New Zealand is also head of state of the Cook Islands, and Cook Islanders are New Zealand citizens." This may be read as implying subordination to NZ rather than separate statehood for the CI and Niue, don't you think? Ladril (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, at least where the two matters mentioned are concerned. It would explain why "it is not universally accepted as a sovereign state due to its constitutional link with New Zealand". I don't think it would be wrong to phrase it like that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about this, we could of course also add to the text that monarchy and citizenship are NZ institutions without changing the rest of it. It is after all a matter of fact that they are NZ institutions and that does shed some light at the problem at hand. Which ids that these countries are in a section in the article about states who's sovereignty is disputed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You would need a source that says that affects sovereignty. According to NZ, CI and Nieu would be considered to have declared independence if they took up a seat at the UN, while the shared Crown and citizenship would continue until changed by statute. Prior to 1947, there was no NZ citizenship and NZ did not obtain the right to change the style of the monarch until 1953, yet was considered independent. One could argue that the monarchy is just as much a CI or Niue institution as it is NZ. TFD (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Im am just suggesting that factual info about monarchy and citizenship as being NZ institutions (which they are) should be added. What that affects is another thing altogether. The status of NZ itself versus the UK was arranged by the Statute of Westminster. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to explain how it is relevant to the article otherwise it is just OR. We could put down that the monarchy of NZ is a British institution and NZers are Commonwealth citizens (with the right to vote in the UK, etc.) TFD (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the inherent nature of the NZ monarchy. Just about the fact that the two countries we are talking about recognize the monarch of NZ as their heads and that the citizens of both countries are NZ citizens. I don't think that's OR. I think that's common knowledge. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

NZ recognizes the monarch of the UK as their head of state and citizens of both countries are Commonwealth citizens (formerly called British subjects). What is the difference between CI's relationship with NZ and NZ's relationship with the UK? And should you not also mention that CI shares a monarch and Commonwealth citizenship with the UK? The point is that none of this has any more bearing on whether or not CI is sovereign than the fact their share a language with NZ and the UK and you need a source to say it does. TFD (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand doesn't recognize the monarch of the UK (as such) as its head of state. It has the same monarch and person as its head of state in a situation which is judicially separated from her situation in the UK or any other of the Commonwealth Realms. The same situation does not apply to NZ and it's two associated states. The Monarch of New Zealand is (as such) head of Niue and the Cook Islands. Not as a distinct sovereign of those countries but as sovereign of NZ. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a red herring. Since the constitution of the CI was an act of the NZ parliament, it uses the same title for the Queen as the NZ constitution. Similarly, the constitution of Canada was an act of the UK parliament and uses the same title for the Queen as the UK, viz., "Queen of the UK." So did NZ btw until 1986, when it replaced the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 (UK) with the Constitution Act 1986 (NZ). So if you want to say that the queen of CI is the Queen of NZ, then you need to add that in every CR, except NZ, their queen is Queen of the UK. TFD (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not about names being used for the Queen but about her different constitutional positions. The situation between the UK and Canada cannot be compared to the situation between New Zealand and the Cook Islands. She is head of the Cook Islands in her constitutional capacity as Queen in right of New Zealand, she is not Queen of New Zealand in her constitutional capacity as Queen of the UK. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Compare the Canadian and CI constitutions and explain how they are different:

Canada: "Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland...." "The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."[19]

CI: "Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand shall be the Head of State of the Cook Islands."[20]

TFD (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The one thing you are forgetting is that the Statute of Westminster 1931 happened, which changed the basic nature of these Constitutional arrangements between Canada, the other Dominions and the UK, today called Commonwealth Realms rather drastically. That situation exists today between the UK and other Commonwealth Realms, like Canada that became part of that arrangement in 1931 regardless of how the monarch was called in 1867 or in 1965. It does not exist between New Zealand and it's two associated states. That is exactly what is different about the two arrangements you mentioned! The wording of these documents, where the monarch's title is concerned, was subject to the different (and changing) legal and constitutional contexts in which they were created! That context is what makes them different. There is no arrangement like the Statute of Westminster between NZ and it's assiciated states as there is between the Commonwealth Realms. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Statute of Westminster only applies to three countries that remain CRs: Canada, Australia and NZ. Even then, it only says that the UK parliament cannot legislate for them without their permission. It was not until the 1980s that Westminster passed laws, for example the Canadian Constitution Act 1982, which said the UK could not legislate for them at all. The Cook Islands independence act 1965 said NZ could not legislate for them at all. Ironically, the UK retained the power to legislate for NZ until 1986. TFD (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The consequence of the Statute of Westminster was that it created different constitutional contexts for the countries that were then Dominions and the CR's founded after that. Making them in fact separate and distinct sovereign countries in which the Crown operates in separate and distinct judicial contexts. That situation does not exist between NZ and it's associated states because the Statute doesn't apply when it comes to relations between them. Legislation by the UK for the CR's only existed by sanction after 1931 and is another matter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Statute of Westminster applied only to the countries named in the act, viz., "United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland." If you disagree, please provide a source. TFD (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cabo Verde

Should it be changed to reflect the nation's UN name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatRusskiiGuy (talk • contribs) 22:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Shortform names used here are the common names. See for example Russia and Iran. The longform name has already been changed to Republic of Cabo Verde. CMD (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Syrian National Coalition (again)

Short and formal names	Membership within the UN System	Sovereignty dispute	Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty
A AAA	A AAA	A AAA
ZZZ↓ UN member states or observer states ↓	A AAA	ZZZ
Syria – Syrian Arab Republic	A UN member state	Claimed by the Syrian National Council	Israel occupies the Golan Heights. The Kurdish Supreme Committee has created a de facto autonomous region: Syrian Kurdistan The Syrian National Coalition, which is recognized as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people by 20 UN members, has established an interim government to rule rebel controlled territory during the Syrian Civil War.
Syrian National Coalition → Syrian National Coalition	A UN member state	A None
ZZZ↑ UN member states and observer states ↑	A ZZZ	ZZZ
ZZZ	AB	B
ZZZ↓ Other states ↓	D AAA	ZZZ
Syria – National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces	D No membership	Claimed by Syria	Recognized by 20 UN member states. The Syrian National Coalition claims to be the legitimate authority of Syria and has created an interim government. It is currently suspended from the Arab League.
ZZZ↑ Other states ↑	D ZZZ	ZZZ
ZZZZ	ZZZZ	ZZZZ

I'm bringing up this discussion again. The Republic of China is included in the list of sovereign states, while the Syrian National Coalition isn't. Both alternative governments have de facto control over territory and are recognized by at least one other sovereign state. I've also included the Syrian Kurdistan in this table to represent all sides of the Syrian Civil War. (A self-declared autonomous region is already included in the official list: Cyrenaica)

Maybe it's short name should be the "Syrian National Coalition"? Or should it link to the Syrian Interim Government? [Soffredo] 03:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Any sources that it satisfies the article's inclusion criteria: either meets the declarative theory of statehood or has been recognized as a sovereign state? As far as I can tell, it has only been recognized as a government or "legitimate representative". TDL (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Republic of China controls territory. Since we last had this discussion, even the militia which gave nominal allegiance to the SNC are being pushed out in favour of Islamist groups. CMD (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The SNC also controls territory. [Soffredo] 16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

We've already discussed it and I see no compelling reason to revisit that discussion or reverse its conclusion. I suggest that this proposal should not be repeated unless some evidence can be found that the SNC actually passes the inclusion criteria independently of Syria. Kahastok talk 14:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It has de facto control over some territories. Why wouldn't it pass the criteria? [Soffredo] 16:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you got a source for the areas they administer? Keep in mind we didn't even include the Libyan opposition, and they were actually based in their country. CMD (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You can see a war map here. [Soffredo] 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The SNC does not exercise control over all the non-government areas. From the beginning, the opposition in the civil war has consisted of a variety of independent militias loosely bound by the common goal of regime change. The SNC, set up outside of Syria, has received the nominal support of some of the groups on the ground. Some groups appear to not support it at all. (At any rates, reports differ, and likely there's fragmentation within groups.) The Kurds appear to have fully broken off, at least for now. Even if groups support the SNC, that does not mean the SNC has any control over them. CMD (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The criteria are quite deliberately written to put the onus on external sources - as opposed to our own analysis of situations - to determine whether the criteria are met or not. So far you have relied solely on your own analysis of the situation re: the declarative theory, and any such argument must, based on our criteria, be disregarded.

So the question is, can you demonstrate that, according to external reliable sources, the Syrian National Coalition meets the criteria laid down in the declarative theory, independently of Syria? Frankly, you haven't come close so far.

And my point remains. In October, you did not demonstrate that the inclusion criteria were met. You make no point now that you did not make in October. If you have new arguments, then I don't mind listening to them. But I see no reason to reconsider my view in the absence of new arguments. Kahastok talk 19:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, we need to remember as well that the four features of the declarative theory of statehood are not the key factor here. The key factor is if either the SNC themselves, or other governments, recognise the SNC as a seperate state from Syria. Unless I'm mistaken, this is not the case - they are recognised as a seperate government. This is a very significant difference. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes - and my understanding is that they are not generally recognised as the government of Syria but as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people - which is different. But remember that the inclusion criteria are either/or. If they are often regarded as meeting the standard laid down in the declarative theory, as a state independent of Syria, then as with Somaliland, that is enough regardless of recognition. Kahastok talk 20:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Yes; I included in my comment that self-declaration is enough ie external recognition is not required if the other conditions are met. But in this case, as far as I know, SNC hasn't self-declared either. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll go with that, no, they haven't. Kahastok talk 22:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Capital cities?

Should we include the capital cities of all the countries in this list? I feel that capital cities are a piece of relevant information and would improve the list as a whole. Let me know what you think. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not, as long as it fits into the table OK! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the article is already WP:TOOLONG, so we shouldn't be expanding it further. This subject of this list is on a state's sovereignty, or lack thereof, and I'm not sure how listing the capitals will help explain that to readers.

List of national capitals and largest cities by country already exists, so it would probably be a good idea to link to that, but I don't think we should repeat that info here. TDL (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. If that list already exists elsewhere, then a link to it would probably be best. I'll add one in the "See also" section. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Territorial disputes

Currently, we list "major" territorial disputes. This is a slippery slope. I suggest we remove all bar the ones that include the dispute over existence. The others aren't relevant to statehood, and we have List of territorial disputes already. CMD (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the wording of the "Further information..." note should be made consistent with the "Sovereignty dispute" note. TDL (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree...very slippery slope. DLinth (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Sabah dispute is relevant to soveriegnty the Sultanate of Sulu. If the Philipines abandons its claim to sabah, by treaty, the claim to soveriegnty reverts to the Sultanate. Since the Sultanate posseses no other soveriegn territory, i think it presents a sui generis case that should be included.XavierGreen (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Sultanate ceded all of its territories to the Philippines, including its claim to Sabah. It is on this basis that the Philippines claims Sabah. CMD (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, but there is a provision in the cession treaty that states that in the event that the Philippines abandons the claim that it reverts back to the Sultanate of Sulu. Therefore it has the unique position of a future residual interest in sovereignty over the territory something that is rather sui generis in international law.XavierGreen (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that we should include various unique situations, as it's hard to define them. As it stands, there is no interest in sovereignty, and even if the situation did occur where the Sultanate claimed it independently of the Philippines, it would be no different from many other areas which claim independence, but lack any means of enforcing it. I don't think the Republic of Cabinda and the Republic of West Papua should be on this page either, for example. CMD (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Did West Ukraine just declare independence?

Apparently "Ukraine's western region of Lviv has reportedly declared independence from the central government" (1) as a result of the recent Euromaidan clashes. Now, I'm not sure if Lviv is now a self-proclaimed sovereign state or has just given itself a form of autonomy. Can anyone find more information on this? A user on reddit tried understanding this and said "They dismissed local (Lviv oblast', one of 27 Ukraine's administrative regions where governments are appointed by president) administration and formed their own, independent of Yanukovich. They do not claim sovereignty, they just do not follow his orders or anyone's appointed by him". [Soffredo] 22:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

West Ukraine hasn’t declared independence. Lviv Oblast authorities, as well as Zakarpattia Oblast authorities have declared allegiance to the President and central government. Aotearoa (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the opposite, but okay. [Soffredo] 17:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't matter if they had, given the lack of a source discussing their position with respect to the declarative theory.

I suggest that it would be a good idea for you to stop to bring these cases up unless you can actually find a source that explicitly makes the case in terms of the declarative theory, or that demonstrates international recognition (as per the inclusion criteria). At the moment you are at serious risk of becoming the boy who cried wolf: you announce these declarations so often, without evidence that the purported "state" actually meets the inclusion criteria, that if you actually do find a situation that should be on the list there's a significant chance you'll be dismissed out of hand. Kahastok talk 19:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

K. [Soffredo] 23:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

This is probably still a bit premature, as it's still in flux there's time to wait until the situation settles down, but at some point we will have to acknowledge that Crimea is settling into a state similar to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the non-recognised list (although it's slightly different because they are seeking full unification with Russia, hence it might be more like a territorial dispute then an independent state).

I'm just wondering what people feel is the threshold for inclusion in that list? According to the Crimean parliament it has joined with Russia as of today, subject only to further ratification by the referendum on 16 March. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No one is suggesting Crimea as its own country. It's either part of uk or ru, so just normal territorial dispute. -- KTC (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Threshold in general is pretty easy: we include a putative state if it meets the inclusion criteria, and we do not include it if it does not. Crimea does not, so we do not include it. No point in reinventing the wheel every time a new situation comes up. Kahastok talk 19:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The current Crimean authorities were installed at gunpoint on February 27th. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Regardless, Crimea is not going to become a sovereign nation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria do allow time for dust to settle. Unless there is actual diplomatic recognition from a third party, we require that a state be "often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood". It takes time for sources to be written that make the case in terms of the declarative theory (news reports generally don't), and the sorts of sources that do this generally deal with stable situations. We've had several cases over the last couple of years where a state has been claimed, but no recognition has been forthcoming and no source has been found by the time the claimed state ceased to exist.

In many cases, this in practice means that claimed "states" never manage it because once the dust settles, the "state" is gone. Kahastok talk 10:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources I've seen indicate the law says that independence will be declared if the referendum agrees to join Russia. If that's the case, there'll be an announcement after the referendum with regards to the situation. CMD (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"Crimea parliament declares independence from Ukraine ahead of referendum" [Soffredo] 19:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Short and formal names	Membership within the UN System	Sovereignty dispute	Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty
A AAA	A AAA	A AAA
ZZZ↓ Other states ↓	A AAA	ZZZ
Crimea - Republic of Crimea	D No membership	Claimed by Ukraine	A de facto independent state, not diplomatically recognized by any other state, claimed by Ukraine.
ZZZ↑ Other states ↑	A ZZZ	ZZZ
A AAA	A AAA	A AAA

If you want to include Crimea in the list, here's a table entry for you. I probably won't make any Crimea-related edits since people who patrol this page already dislike me. [Soffredo] 20:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

They haven't declared independence yet. What the declaration actually says: "If Crimean residents vote for the accession of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to Russia as a constituent entity, Crimea will be declared an independent republic after the referendum" and "Based on the results of the referendum, Crimea will address Russia to accede to it as a constituent entity". You can read the full text of the declaration for yourself here. Media are describing this as: "Crimea's Parliament said Tuesday that if the public votes to become part of Russia, the peninsula will declare itself independent and propose becoming a Russian state." They've said they'll declare independence if people vote in favour of joining Russia. Even if or when they declare independence, that is only part one of the criteria. This isn't a list of places that have declared independence, it is a list of sovereign states. We'd still need We'd still need sources to support the claim that they "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood". TDL (talk)

This a list of places that have declared independence or are independent, the caveate is it is limited to states. If they have declared independence they should be included. It is not necessary to include sources to support the claim that they "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood" because its qualification for inclusion would be prima facia. Indeed the Crimea is already a state, albeit a non-independent one. Its prior status was that of a republic within the Ukraine and its structure as such is well sourced.XavierGreen (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court of law. While it may well be your opinion that its qualification for inclusion would be prima facia, this needs to be sourced or else it is WP:OR. Everything on wikipedia needs to be sources. If it's so obvious, then surely someone else has made this observation and published it in a reliable source, so it shouldn't be hard for you to WP:PROVEIT. That it was a republic within the Ukraine is irrelevant to the question of if it "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood" since by definition republics within the Ukraine don't "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood". TDL (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC):::

No, because the type of proof you require takes months if not years to put into what you call a reliable source. A book or scholarly article on international affairs that would cover such proofs as your opinion requires would not have been published already. While i don't think the Crimea has declared independence yet from reading the source material, once they do as they surely will they will qualify for the page as hundreds upon hundreds of news sources will state that they are have declared themselves an independent sovereign state. The declarative theory requires nothing more than the existence of a state and a declaration of independence. As i stated before both will be easily sourceable when the time comes. A polity can have a state structure and be non-sovereign. And by the way if your going to start quoting wikipedia canons (which make wikipedia seem more like a court of law than you would think), not everything on wikipedia needs sources Wikipedia:Common_knowledge.XavierGreen (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you honestly trying to argue that the fact that Crimea may eventually "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood" someday is common knowledge? I think it is clear that this qualifies under "Technical knowledge". (Plus WP:CK is neither a policy nor a guideline.) And to suggest that because it takes a long time for sources to verify something we should just make things up in the interim is equally silly. This is a huge story that even you admit will be covered by hundreds of news outlets on the day it eventually happens. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "what you call a reliable source" (I use the term as wikipedia defines it), but most of those news sources will qualify as reliable sources. Again, if this is such common sense then surely one of those hundreds of news articles will discuss Crimea's qualifications for statehood. So that's hundreds of potential reliable sources on day 1. That can't be too long long to wait. We need to base our list on what those sources say, not what a couple wiki editors think is common sense. TDL (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Palestine and land

What are editors thoughts on mentioning details of Palestinian control? Palestine's quite unique in that it had a great deal of recognition before it had any real presence in daily administration. CMD (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree that this is worth mentioning. TDL (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Crimea

Apparently, the independent Crimea was for 1 day only, so we could remove it now? I have no time to look into this, but, we have these two pages: Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea (country). —SPESH531Other 02:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and we had Republic of Crimea (country) before the Republic of Crimea even existed. This is being discussed at Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition#Crimea. From the sources listed there, it seems that the annexation has not formally been finalized and that it first must be approved by Russia's Parliament. TDL (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It should not be removed, its not yet a federal subject of russia and is still defacto independent. It is well sourced in the talk page mentioned above that the duma must first approve the treaty. The page Republic of Crimea should not even exist yet and is blatently false, because Crimea is not yet a republic of russia.XavierGreen (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW sources suggest that the Duma completed its legislative processes today. As such, and based on discussion between regulars here at Talk:List of states with limited recognition, I have removed Crimea from the list. Kahastok talk 19:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think after the removal of Crimea and Sevastopol it should also be changed in the list that Russia has now 85 federal subjects instead of 83 and that Ukraine still claims these two subjects from Russia as part of Ukraine.Engel1983 (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic

The Donetsk People's Republic declared its independence from Ukraine today. (1) (2) Should we include it? It's declaration of sovereignty seems to be getting enough coverage to me. [Soffredo] 12:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

“The Donetsk Republic is to be created within the administrative borders of the Donetsk region. This decision will come into effect after the referendum,” (3) So, from my understanding, this is a proposed state? Is it a similar situation in which the Republic of Crimea created their declaration of independence but waited until a referendum for it to go into effect? [Soffredo] 12:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that text is quite clear that it will be created after an independence referendum, at which point it will be appropriate to list here if independent reliable sources describe it as a sovereign state. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Pro-Russian protesters seized official buildings in the eastern cities of Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk on Sunday night, demanding that referendums be held on whether to join Russia like the one that preceded Moscow's takeover of Crimea." Maybe the upcoming referendum is just for joining Russia? The RT article is the only source I've found saying the Republic has yet to be established. [Soffredo] 13:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Interfax Referendum on the establishment of the Donetsk People's Republic will place not later than May 11 (Референдум о создании Донецкой народной республики планируют провести не позднее 11 мая). So, according to this source the republic will be established after referendum. Aotearoa (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

" 'The territory of the republic within the recognized borders is indivisible and inviolable,' the council said. The legislators also passed a decision on holding a referendum on whether or not the region should join the Russian Federation. It will be held no later than May 11."

The Republic clearly has already claimed territory under its control, and the referendum seems to be for joining the Russian Federation, not for independence. Along with the massive coverage this is getting, I say we should include it into the list. [Soffredo] 13:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

<Reduce indent> A declaration of sovereignty, even if widely reported, is not sufficient in itself for inclusion on this list. We need proof of control over territory (this is not just controlling a building, or even a district) and this control needs not to be our interpretation, but that of independent sources. The situation on the ground is clearly complex and fluid - in 24-48 hours we will have responses from Ukraine, Russia and other actors: I suggest we hold out until then! Once again, I urge you not to rush this - and please (in a friendly way) I ask you to consider The Boy Who Cried Wolf... Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that these activists control anything more than individual buildings. There is a difference between separatist groups and functioning states, and this page does not cover the former. They belong on the various lists of active separatist movements. CMD (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I also think that's taking it a step too far the other way. There are reports of road blocks, and very few (if any) of those separatist groups that you link to have actively declared independence. It's possible that Ukraine decide to not respond and that within a week or less this group has working control of much of East Ukraine, and will have either declared independence of will have it as an option on a forthcoming referendum. Equally, it's possible that army/police regain the buildings, or that they are left as a effectively a few gangsters in control of a couple of districts, but without sovereignty (even if it is proclaimed). For me this is a reasonable to case to be 'monitored' for this page, but as of yet it should not be added. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

All information I've seen on road blocks says they have been established by Ukraine, not the separatists. Can you link me to the information I've missed? CMD (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you're correct, I misread the sources. The point stands though - we shouldn't dismiss this, but we also shouldn't accept it on the page. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the difference between dismissing something and not accepting it on this page? If this movement begins to show a faint semblance of controlling populated territory, in a manner aptly summarised by XavierGreen below, then I'm sure it'll be discussed here. In the meantime rushing around trying to get ahead of the story is only going to cause problems, much like it did with Crimea. CMD (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The key here is to establish that they have declared independence and have control over a populated place. While the page doesn't specifically define what a populated place is, past discussions here have generally put a minimum threshold on control of a municipality/town/village. From past discussions here, it is rather clear that the criteria exclude entities that only control parts of a town/village/city (note how micronations which generally control only minor portions of a single populated place are excluded). As far as i have read, the Donetsk People's Republic does not control any village town or city in its entirety.XavierGreen (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be added to unrecognized states. It declared its independence...Crimea was also added, even though eventually acceded to Russia. It is not known what will happen next and it should be considered an unrecognized state, for the time being. Viller the Great (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Xavier there is no evidence that these people have firm control over anything, there is a reason why we don't have Sealand here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point. What confuses me is why it has been added to the map of unrecognized states if it is not supposed to be on that page? It has also been added to the unrecognized states template. The whole situation in Donetsk is confusing. Sealand for a fact is a micro-nation. Viller the Great (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't consider it to be an unrecognized state until reliable sources say that any such state exists. A declaration of independence does not a state make. Lots of places which have declared independence are not listed here because they don't meet the inclusion criteria, ie they are not "often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood". TDL (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Where should we mark the line between an actual sovereign state and a country just declared by a group of people? Should all the latter be declared micro-nations? One thing is certain not all sovereign states are recognized. Viller the Great (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a line between groups of people proclaiming things and groups of people who actually control territory to back up their claims. Crimea had immediate control and managed to trap Ukrainians in their bases immediately. Donetsk is a bunch of people in a building. CMD (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Crimea (including Sevastopol) was truly a sovereign state, until it acceded to the Russian Federation. I suppose we can assume Crimea is fully under Russian control, but also that the rest of Ukraine probably will not dismember. Eastern Ukraine does not have as much Russians as in Crimea, and it appears they favor staying with Ukraine. The question is how long will the protesters be in the building? Viller the Great (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

(CNN) is reporting that special forces from Ukraine have taken back the building. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well then that probably will mean that this republic will come to an end. It is likely that no other part of Ukraine (besides Crimea) will secede now. It was never the government officials that declared the independence as i am reading after all...what will happen to the article then? Viller the Great (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

<reduce indent> The creation of the article was far too hasty. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The areas siezed in Donetsk have not been retaken, rather the areas in Kharkiv have. Also reports circulating around some talk pages that the group declaring independence recinding their declaration are false, sources have been added to the Donetsk People's Republic page showing that the organization recinding the declaration is not the same one that declared independence and holding the buildings in Donetsk.XavierGreen (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is all a bit confusing, even so I feel we should hold off at the very least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

January

Unfortunately, it looks like ISIL/ISIS has declared itself an independent state. [[21]] It looks to me like it meets the criteria for inclusion, it controls permanantly populated places (Raqqa and other places in Syria, as well as Fallujah and some minor areas of Iraq), has the capacity to enter diplomatic relations, has declared independence, and has a defined territory (Iraq and the levant (syria)). Hopefully its control of populated areas will be eliminated, but for now i think it qualifies for inclusion.XavierGreen (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be added. But, what's the name of the state? And shouldn't more sources be included? [Soffredo] 04:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, they declared, the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", centered in Aleppo[[22]] —SPESH531Other 06:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Are there any sources that back the claim that it meets the article's inclusion criteria by satisfying the declarative theory of statehood? As above, personal opinions on the subject are not enough. We need a source which explicitly says "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant satisfies the declarative theory of statehood." TDL (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The relevant criterion is whether a putative state (emphasis mine) "consider themselves sovereign (through a declaration of independence or some other means) and are often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood". You've just made the case based on your own original interpretation of whether the declarative theory is met, but that's not enough to demonstrate that they are "often regarded" as satisfying the theory. Per TDL, we need outside sources demonstrating that the same deduction has been made elsewhere. Kahastok talk 09:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it'd be fine if we had sources treating it as a putative state, or breakaway state, or any language similar to the one they use for Somaliland and Transnistria and the like, rather than necessarily needing one saying it meets certain criteria. That said, these sources won't exist now. They don't even control Aleppo. CMD (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going on a limb here, don't take this as me being 100% serious, but maybe Aleppo is the de jure capital, and Fallujah or Ar-Raqqah is the de facto capital? Just trying to make some ideas for what would make it eligible for criteria (not that I want it to be, it would be terrible if ISIL actually gets major control of the area.) —SPESH531Other 19:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This article [[23]] says "...the militants were on the verge of declaring an independent state." So nothing yet, apparently. —SPESH531Other 19:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes no difference if we don't have sources suggesting that they meet the declarative theory. There's not much point in speculating as to what factors might lead to an entity meeting the criteria behind the declarative theory because we are not trying to judge whether they meet those criteria. Kahastok talk 22:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times wrote an article calling the state the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The state has been declared and has control over area. Why would we deny it's de facto existence? [Soffredo] 22:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Proper noun. They're not asserting that it is a state, they are asserting that the organisation calls itself "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". And FFS they might not even last the week. Given the state of active civil war, and given that we didn't put in Eastern Libya, why should they go in? We really really really shouldn't be in the business of trying to track the progress on a day-by-day basis of every conflict on the planet. Kahastok talk 22:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Soffredo is also pushing this on List of states with limited recognition, List of shortest-lived sovereign states, and has recreated Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. CMD (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The article for shortest-lived states includes de facto state. The Bangsamoro Republik and Azawad got articles, why is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria being nominated for deletion? [Soffredo] 01:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

For the reasons listed on the deletion page. CMD (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient reason to list it, prior to the Syrian Civil War the ISIL's predecessor, the Islamic State of Iraq claimed to be the legitimate government of Iraq. It had a shadow state structure with ministers and cabinet positions. ISIS also has this same structure. State is not merely a part of its name, it actually has the aparatus of one. And now that it administers territory and has declared independence it clearly meets the criteria. As for eastern libya, to my knowlege it never declared independence so it would not have met the criteria for this page (if it had, i would have added it myself).XavierGreen (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a source noting this apparatus is in effect somewhere? It seems like they captured a few government buildings, lost some buildings, and are engaged in street fighting. I find it hard to imagine much room for any government structure to work there. CMD (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

[24] This source refers to ISIS declaring themselves to be a state, so I think that there is sufficient third party coverage of the events to add them to this list. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that the the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant have declared themselves to be a state ([25], [26], [27]. This is beyond doubt. To be included in this page, they need to actually start acting as a state (ie permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations) and for sources to recognise this. In a month they may have this; it may be sooner or longer too. If a ceasefire is declared and they retain control over some territory, or if the conflict continues sufficiently long for them to establish themselves in a location, then they may have this. At the moment, I don't see that they do. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ISIS does have a government structure and has had one for some time, it has a cabinate reporting to the Emir of 10 ministers as listed and sourced on the groups wikipedia page. It also has controlled permanant populations for months as you can see through the sources listed on the Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War page. As for defined territory, thats given in its own name, it claims all of Iraq and the Levant (Syria) as its territory. In regards to the capacity to enter relations with other states, its warfare with Syria and Iraq is evidence in itself of that.XavierGreen (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The city of Ar-Raqqah has been under its control for a long time now. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

But that these make it a state remains an original interpretation until we source it. I agree - I expect we'll be adding this soon. I'm not convinced that we should be adding yet. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) This is all very well, but none of it is sufficient because we have no external source taking the considered view that they are in fact a state. Everything we have is reporting the position of this organisation and that they have a degree of control, not that they are a state.

Who cares if they have control over territory? We don't. Nor do we care about whether they have a population or a government. And how do we even know if they have the capacity to enter into relations if they have not actually done so? It's not our job to decide.

We do not add an entity as a state unless we have sources calling it a state. We need more than that ("often regarded" implies that we must take account of reliability of sources and WP:FRINGE), but we don't even have that in this case.

If we think that a state has no control over territory, no population, no government and no capacity to enter into relations, but they are often regarded as meeting those criteria and consider themselves independent, then the state goes in. If we think that a state has control over territory, population, government and capacity to enter into relations, but they are not often regarded as meeting those criteria, then the state stays out. Kahastok talk 18:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Proof of a declaration of independence and of controll over territory is all that is needed as ISIL/ISIS has had a state structure since at least 19 April 2007. This is a well known fact, for example this source here provides a short description of the declaration of the state's existence and the formation of its government [[28]].XavierGreen (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

False. The criteria say nothing whatsoever about having control over territory and say nothing about state structure, so those factors are irrelevant. Kahastok talk 20:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If this declaration is anything more than a passing military fancy, I expect there'll be some information discussing state-like functions they exercise, as there are about Al-Shabaab, and were about M23. Of course, neither of those have/did declare independence. That would provide something at least worth discussing. CMD (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In re Kahastok, it is entirely relevant. The criteria is that a state be regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood. States that are regarded by the Montevideo Convention as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood if they (a) posses a permanent population; (b) have a defined territory; (c) have a government; and (d) have a capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Each of these three factors has been established by the sources provided, therefore under the declarative theory of international law ISIS would be regarded to be a soveriegn state.XavierGreen (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No.

Our rule is not whether they met the Montevideo criteria. It used to be. But it isn't any more.

Our rule now is whether they are often regarded as meeting the rules for the declarative theory.

Our views of whether they meet the Montevideo criteria are irrelevant. It is external sources that are important. Kahastok talk 21:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's my proposal to how the state would be incorporated into the list:

Short and formal names	Membership within the UN System	Sovereignty dispute	Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty
A AAA	A AAA	A AAA
ZZZ↓ Other states ↓	A AAA	ZZZ
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria	D No membership	Claimed by Iraq and Syria	A de facto independent state, not diplomatically recognized by any other state, claimed by the Republic of Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic.
ZZZ↑ Other states ↑	A ZZZ	ZZZ
A AAA	A AAA	A AAA

Thoughts? Maybe the short name should be Iraq and Syria? Does the state claim ISIL-controlled Syrian territory? [Soffredo] 21:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. This map shows Syrian controlled territory. [Soffredo] 22:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In re Karstok: "are often regarded" by who? That's an ambiguous statement, it means the same thing as the criteria did before which is why i didn't care when it was changed because the change was textually meaningless. Under the terms of the montevideo convention / the declarative theory of statehood the ISIS would often be regarded as a sovereign state, therefore if one wants to have an unbiased complete list of sovereign states it would have to be included.XavierGreen (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

By who? By WP:reliable sources of course! That XavierGreen's and Soffredo's personal opinion is that it meets the terms of the Montevideo Convention is fine, but this is a serious encyclopedia, not a personal blog, so we can't publish their WP:original research. If you want to include it, show us some sources that say the ISIS is "often be regarded as a sovereign state" under the Montevideo convention. However, since no one has been able to find any such sources, they can't be added. TDL (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Shoot, meeting the Montevideo criteria doesn't seem to be a barrier to some any more. See the recent attempt to add a list of states that may, at some stage in the recent past, and in the opinion of at least one editor of Wikipedia, have briefly met the Montevideo criteria. Kahastok talk 23:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you noticed, i added them in a new section. The addition of a section of transient states can aleviate the problem of these temporary flash in the pan entities. I am attempting to find a compromisable solution, which you unfortunately seem to be making a mockery of in bad faith.XavierGreen (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No where does it say that in the articles criteria, and i would oppose such a change if it were proposed. So long as states meet the declartive or constitutive theory of statehood they should be listed on this page.XavierGreen (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. But it is for reliable sources, not you, to decide whether they meet the declartive or constitutive theory of statehood. TDL (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You guys are losing you minds over this. No news corporation will admit that an al-Qaeda state matches the requirements for a sovereign state. This constant reverting on 20 different pages is NOT helping either. Talk this problem out, instead of letting this spiral even more out of control.—SPESH531Other 23:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Go back to the status quo of January 2, and figure it out from there, then implement changes if necessary. You need a consensus, and this bickering will not fix anything.—SPESH531Other 23:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. "No news corporation will admit that an al-Qaeda state matches the requirements for a sovereign state". [Soffredo] 02:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Of course I suppose it is possible that there could be some grand conspiracy by every news organization on the planet to hide the fact that they are a state, but even if that were the case it is still not our job to try to spread the WP:TRUTH. If we want to claim that the ISIS is a state, then we need sources that say it is a state, not just the opinion of a couple wikipedia editors shouting that it's WP:TRUE. Period. TDL (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people are saying that no source claims it meets criteria for statehood, given that I have already cited one source claiming that it is attempting to form a state. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Attempting to form a state and being a state are two entirely different things. I'm attempting to be the King of Spain. Should I add myself to that article? TDL (talk)

Do you have a reliable source to back that up? [Soffredo] 04:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've provided exactly the same number of reliable sources saying I'm the King of Spain as have been supplied saying that the ISIS meets the declarative theory of statehood. TDL (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You have produce less since your claim has at least one less article devoted to it than this issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

0 is not less than 0, it's equal to 0. To date, not a single article devoted to the ISIS meeting the declarative theory of statehood has been produced. If you have one, then please do share with us. But if there are no sources which claim that the ISIS meets the declarative theory of statehood, then we shouldn't be making up such claims. WP:NOR is, afterall, one of Wikipedia's most important policies. TDL (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

<reduce indent> On the 'no news source would admit that an Al Qaida-state is a state' argument: I agree that it may take longer. Indeed, one of the flaws of an encyclopaedia is that it will reflect the biases of the societies from within which it is produced. However, if it really does hold out, then academic and eventualy news orgnaisations will start to refer to it as a state in time - I'm confident of that. At the moment, I think that the most suitable places for this to be listed are at List of active separatist movements in Asia, List of territorial disputes and List of active rebel groups. This is also why I do not think that we need a new subsection of this page: we have places which exist already. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"KSA to recognize al-Qaeda state in Iraq: S. Jawad" This article says that the state may be receiving recognition. It also calls it a "state within a state". [Soffredo] 13:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's let Saudi Arabia decide who it gives recognition to, rather than a single activist. CMD (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just using the source to show some are calling it a state. [Soffredo] 17:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A reporter asking a probing question referring to alleged support of the "creation" of a state within a state is not a reliable basis for anything. CMD (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nor is anti-Saudi hearsay in an article from an Iranian state-owned news website. Do we even accept Press TV as a reliable source at all? GeoEvan (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I know someone touched upon this already, but as far as I've seen no source has yet said what the name of the declared state is. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is the name of the organization (one translation of it anyway), and all the recent reports I've seen actually seem to imply that the state was declared only in Fallujah. GeoEvan (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

February

More sources calling it a sovereign state are appearing. (1, 2, 3) Now does it follow all that's needed to be added to the list? [Soffredo] 22:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Those sources do not call it a sovereign state (except where referring to the entity's aspirations). Even if they did it would not be enough, since we need sources that refer to the declarative theory of statehood. The new sources do nothing that the sources we had a month ago did not do. It wasn't enough then and it isn't enough now.

Unless you have overriding new evidence - and so far you do not - I suggest you leave it. Kahastok talk 08:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Kahastok. The sources don't verify that they meet the criteria. TDL (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

March

I have found some more recent sources describing ISIS as a soveriegn state.

• This source states that ISIS regards itself to be a soveriegn state [[29]]
• This article refers to tax regulations on christians living under ISIS "soveriegnty". [[30]]
• This source describes it as "defacto soveriegn" [[31]]

XavierGreen (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

So when do we all finally agree to add it? [Soffredo] 00:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

April

I have found a source here, [[32]], which states that ISIS has affirmed its independence. I believe there is now enough sufficent sourcing for inclusion under the declarative theory of statehood.XavierGreen (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a source that demonstrates that ISIS meets the declarative theory of statehood as required by the inclusion criteria. Yours doesn't. Kahastok talk 21:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That is merely what your own interpretation of what the inclusion criteria requires, and reviewing the talk page listed here indicates that it is clearly a minority opinion. I have seen only 1 other editor espouse it.XavierGreen (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The article explicitly says: "For the purposes of this list, included are all states that either: (a) consider themselves sovereign (through a declaration of independence or some other means) and are often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood" so clearly we need sources to support the claim that they are "often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood" before they should be added. How else could one conceivably interpret that sentence? Obviously, "regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood according to an anonymous poster on the internet" is not enough. To date, no such sources have been produced. And as the source you posted only refers to the ISIS as a "state" in scare quotes, it's hardly convincing. TDL (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Virtually all sources on international law state that states that have declared independence, have a permanent population, have a government, and have a capacity to enter into relations with other states, are regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood. Providing sources that prove those elements is sufficient under the criteria. I have provided sources that have shown all of these elements.XavierGreen (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No you haven't. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to have a poll about including the ISIS like editors did for Niue and the Cook Islands? We should collect all sources claiming the ISIS as a state before starting the poll. [Soffredo] 12:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd support the latter idea: consider people's comments above, and then collect what you feel to be the 'strongest' sources supporting this claim. Perhaps even in a subpage? At the moment, I've not seen anything remotely convincing. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

List of sources

• "...these al-Qaeda militants and also creating as many are pointing out a ‘state within a state’ with regards to Iraq?"
• "...as has ISIS's unwillingness to submit to an independent sharia court and its belief that it is a sovereign state in liberated territory.
• “They are not playing nice with other groups and they are acting as a sovereign state, aggravating other rebels and hurting the effort against the regime.”
• "Nonetheless, the fighting has aggravated intra-jihadi tensions as the ongoing hostilities focus attention on ISIS’s unique claim to statehood and the inviolable sovereignty that this implies."
• "Under the strict Islamic Sharia doctrine, non-Muslims living under their sovereignty must pay a special tax...
• "It has also not escaped Israel’s attention that a de facto sovereign jihadi-controlled zone now exists in eastern Syria’s Raqqa province, stretching into western Anbar province in Iraq."
• "Until recently, the Iraqi “state” was widely seen as a formal al-Qaeda branch..."

I hope this helps. [Soffredo] 16:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Copying sources from above we noted were rubbish before is not helpful, and does not make anyone more inclined to hear your argument. It also makes the other sources seem less useful and the whole thing less serious (especially if it's the first source in the list).

For others, an interesting quote that should be added from the washington post article above (third bullet) is "ISIS is the group that is more aggressively pursuing the al-Qaeda agenda of establishing an Islamist caliphate by setting up the institutions of state that enable it to administer the areas it controls". CMD (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just collecting previously posted sources.... [Soffredo] 17:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, but in the future, remember that rubbish sources make the whole thing less credible. That is why Super Nintendo Chalmers asked for the "strongest" sources. CMD (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if my request has created problems - but I did think it would be useful to gather together exactly what evidence there was in one place (given that Soffredo and Xavier Green clearly genuinely believe that the provided sources are adequate). That ISIS claims to be a state is uncontroversial I think, so the sources which confirm that are useful but don't particularly add anything. We can't really consider any sources which use scare quotes around state/sovereignty, which also removes the final source. This leaves us with the Press TV (1), Fox News (3) and Jerusalem Post (4) sources. All of these describe ISIS, in passing, as a state. So what to make of them? Press TV seems to be little more than a mouthpiece of the Iranian government. I think we can therefore dismiss it as a reasonable source. I think most of us are also familiar with Fox News and again, would question its validity as a source: in particular, it's unclear what definition or idea of sovereignty that they're using here (hint: a lazy journalist wrote it for a cheap sensationalist news source without thinking). That leaves the Jerusalem Post, then, as the only source starting to become a valid one to warrant inclusion here. But it's clearly not enough on its own and would require more than simply passing references.

It's useful to gather here because it shows us how far we are from having valid, reliable sources. What we're looking for here are multiple credible sources which, as the topic of the article, discuss ISIS's sovereignty. That means more than just a passing reference or the use of either state or sovereignty as an adjective (I could also use the Fox News source, for example, to claim that ISIS are only a 'rebel group'). Ideally, these sources would come from academic or think tank sources, rather than news sources - equally, though, I think we can accept these where there are several of them and in situations where information has recently changed.

I hope that helps clarify why other editors are objecting to this inclusion. Of the sources you quote, only one really has any validity, and that would only be usable if accompanied by multiple (read: into double digits) similar sources. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I think the Washington Post source is as good as the JPost one. It discusses ISIS in the sort of language Somaliland is discussed with (and FARC et al., basically it notes the exercise of state-like functions), which is the sort of evidence a good source would use even if it doesn't go out to the full conclusion that is being searched for. CMD (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Fox source doesn't even describe the ISIS as a state. The quoted passage is just defining what a Jizyah is.

The point is that trying decide whether an entity is a state or not is a VERY complicated question. There are entire academic journal articles devoted to evaluating prospective states under the DTOS. A passing mention by a journalist really doesn't help clarify the issues. See for example WP:NEWSORG which says: "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic."

So as Super Nintendo Chalmers said above, we need articles which specifically address the issue of the ISIS's claims to statehood, and not merely make an offhand remark. Such an article would quote experts in the field, etc. to present an informed academic opinion. TDL (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk meets criteria via declarative theory

The city of Slovyansk is now under full control of the Donetsk People's Republic. See sources here, [[33]],[[34]], [[35]],[[36]].XavierGreen (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Xavier, none of the sources that you offer state that the DPR controls anything other than a few administrative buildings. None of them describe DPR as a state, and none of them say that they control anything over than a few administrative buildings. From a practical perspective as well, we cannot say that states emerge due to control over territory during a period of war. There's no evidence from your sources that the DPR has a functioning government, for example, or the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Controlling territory and saying you're state is not enough --Super Nintendo Chalmers Напомним, председатель Верховной Рады Украины Александр Турчинов во время телеобращения по меморандуму о взаимопонимании вокруг решения ситуации в Донецке заявил, что украинская власть готова предоставить русскому языку и другим языкам официальный статус в определенных областях Украины.(talk) 07:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that the first source does state that they control two cities. Nonetheless, my other objections stand. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

But who has controlled? Are there DPR forces? Or other guerillas (or Russian forces)? Aotearoa (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the forces in Slovyansk are affiliated with the DPR, [[37]]. The DPR also has a government, with a legislative body and government ministers [[38]]. The majority of states in existence emerged from control over territory during war.XavierGreen (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not emerging in a war that's a problem. It's that gaining control of territory during wartime is not the same has having sovereign control over that territory. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Donetsk declared that independence would occur after a referendum, following Crimea's lead. Is there a clear statement somewhere? CMD (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the article, it says they've already declared independence. The referendum is only for joining the Russian Federation. [Soffredo] 20:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

After all the stuff that's happened with Crimea articles, why should I trust the text of a wikipedia page on such things? Do you have an actual source discussing the matter or are you guessing? CMD (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that I see no clear control or structure of this proclaimed state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Does DPR claim to be an independent state? Hellerick (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It does seem, overnight, the DPR is possibly edging towards statehood. Certainly reports show them acting like a state [39]. However the wording of this sort of report suggests that independence will not be formally achieved until after the May referendum:

"Meanwhile, a loosely organised temporary government inside the building began laying the groundwork for a referendum on the "sovereignty" of the newly declared Donetsk republic, which it plans to hold simultaneously with similar referendums in Lugansk and Kharkiv some time before 11 May."

There's emergent evidence here of a government, and reports of symbols of statehood. I'm not arguing for it's inclusion yet, but my suspicion is that unless a peace agreement emerges in which it sets up as an autonomous republic of Ukraine, that we will be adding it after 11th May. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a clear question as to how much control this crowd have now, and (particularly given today's agreement at Geneva) how much they will have as things develop. It's all very well announcing a referendum, and it's all very well declaring independence, but it means nothing if there's no actually control.

Remember that the basis for including Crimea was not the declarative theory, but Russian recognition. To include it, we would need it to be clear that Donetsk is often regarded as meeting the criteria, i.e. using sources that make the point clear. The views of a bunch of Wikipedia editors are neither here nor there. Kahastok talk 18:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, Crimea was included once it declared independence. Your narrow interpretation of the inclusion criteria is clearly not consensus. To satisfy often regarded, one merely needs to supply references that satisfy the criteria often regarded as constituting a state under the declarative theory.XavierGreen (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In regards to control it is well sourced that the entire city of Sloviansk is under control of the DPR. The agreement in Geneva is meaningless, as the DPR and other belligerent groups were not represented at the conference. The DPR did not lay down its arms and is still in control of the areas it siezed.XavierGreen (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that is a broad consensus both here and project-wide that sources are required for substantive claims such as this. You have repeatedly insisted that we must synthesise statehood from multiple sources, even where there is no reliable source claiming that statehood exists. You seem quite happy with the notion that Wikipedia might be the only independent source in the world to claim that statehood exists - a clear and obvious violation of WP:NOR.

I note even under your own interpretation, you have produced nothing to demonstrate capacity to enter into foreign relations.

It seems odd that you deny even the possibility that an event could possibly occur, as a result of the agreement in Geneva or otherwise, that might change the situation on the ground in the next three and a half weeks (before 11 May). I see no basis for this assumption, given the speed of events in the Ukraine over recent months. Kahastok talk 21:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As i have stated many times before, carrying out warfare against another state is enough to satisfy the capacity to enter foreign relations. But beyond that, the DPR actually has made an offical plea for assistance to officials in the United Kingdom. See [[40]]. In terms of sourcing, i agree that there is some conflicting information as to whether or not donetsk has already declared independence or will do so if the referendum is successful on the 11th of May. But once clear information regarding its independence is established, the remainder of the requirements are already at the moment satisfied.

In terms of independent sourcing, a states own declaration of independence is enough if the other criteria are established. There is a clear bias in the media and pro-international law scholars against pariah states, that either don't care about joining the UN or oppose it. I've spoken out before about it on this talk page when the current page format was established. ISIS for example meets the definition of a state on its face, but you will be hard pressed to find any media outlet or scholar say so for fear of giving it legitimacy. The same goes for the DPR, you'll see media calling it a 'so called state' or 'self styled'.XavierGreen (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

So you're not just combining different things from different sources to come to a totally new conclusion, you're also basing one of those claims on such a wild logical leap that it itself falls foul of basic sourcing requirements.

It is manifestly absurd to suggest that you can demonstrate capacity to enter into foreign relations by making an unanswered appeal to any government. That's a micronation claim, not a practical reality. But you're going even further than that. You're claiming it applies even when it's an appeal not to a government but to a the leader of any political party - even one has never managed to elect an MP.

And I would have thought it blindingly obvious that a declaration of independence is not an independent source for its own validity.

But beyond that your second paragraph misses a pretty important point. It is not Wikipedia's job to speak out against the academic consensus - no more here than for any other WP:FRINGE theory. Even if we all took the view that a state exists but is being ignored by the outside world, it is not for us to make the call, particularly when that call cannot be justified using independent sources.

Per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Under all Wikipedia policy and local consensus, the correct weight for a viewpoint such as this that has not been published in any reliable source is zero. Kahastok talk 09:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, as an academic (not in this field I should note) I reject the notion that scholars wouldn't call a state a state if they thought that this was the case. Many of us spend our time writing articles, blogs and books which are highly critical of dominant government policy and public opinion. The reason that you'll struggle to find an academic source which refers to either ISIS or the DPR as sovereign states is a lack of evidence, not some worry over giving legitimacy to a sovereign state. I have more sympathy with the argument re: newspaper sources but even then I would suspect that dissenting voices would emerge over time. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No matter how WP:TRUE you think it is that the ISIS/DPR are states, if there are no WP:RS to WP:VERIFY this claim then it is WP:OR. And blaming this lack of sources on a grand conspiracy by the global media to suppress this information because for some unknown reason they don't want to give these proto-states legitimacy is the very definition of a WP:FRINGE theory. Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place to attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If we are going to claim that either meets the definition of statehood, then we need RS that say it meets the definition of statehood, not a personal opinion on the matter. TDL (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The assertion that the media and western scholars would be hesitant to label ISIS as a state unnder any circumstances (an-anti west jihiadi polity more brutal than Al Qaeda) is certainly not fringe. I don't think you can seriously call fringe the assertion that western media and international law scholars would be hesitant to describe a polity at war with the entire world an equal legitimate personality (a state) in international relations. If you do think it is fringe, you certainly have not talked to anyone who has any dealings with international law academia, policy makers, or think tank groups.XavierGreen (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Even if everyone here accepted all of this argument, it would not make a jot of difference. In the case you claim - a massive global conspiracy to suppress news of the existence of a state in Donetsk, such that all the world's media and academics were colluding to prevent any source suggesting that a state exists from emerging - it would not be Wikipedia's job to stand alone against said conspiracy.

Just about every content policy Wikipedia has makes it clear that we do not put things in articles unless they have first been published in independent reliable sources. It doesn't matter why no source says that there is a state in Donetsk. If no source says that there is a state in Donetsk, then so far as Wikipedia is concerned there is no state in Donetsk. Regardless of whether individuals here personally believe that a state exists or not. Kahastok talk 10:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As i stated above, the available sources are conflicting on whether Donetsk consider's itself independent now or after a successful May referendum. Given that uncertainty i don't think it can be clearly ascertained whether or not it considers itself dejure independent in its own eyes and therefore qualify for the page. Note that a state can be defacto independent without considering itself dejure independent (Tamil Eelam during the Sri Lankan Civil War or Hamas administered Gaza Strip are examples) I do think the case for listing ISIS however is quite strong, given that it quite clearly meets the criteria often regarded by international law academia as constituting a state under the declarative theory.XavierGreen (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The rule is not "meets the criteria often regarded by international law academia as constituting a state under the declarative theory" - though, let's be clear, nobody has demonstrated even that in either case. It is "often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood". Under Wikipedia policy, local consensus and the clear letter and spirit of the inclusion criteria, you cannot avoid having a source that explicitly interprets the criteria in favour of ISIS or Donetsk. Whether you like it or not. Kahastok talk 18:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The absurdity of the situation is that the pro-Kiev sources are trying to present DPR as a breakaway territory, thus preferring it to be listed here, while the pro-Donetsk sources present it as a territory seeking for a self-governing status within Ukraine, thus would rather have it left out from the list. Hellerick (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide sources to back this up? [Soffredo] 19:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be an original research. Western and Kiev sources call them "separatists", Russian sources call them "supporters of federalization". I was trying to find out what will be the questions for the upcoming referendum and while some pro-Kiev biased sources cite openly separatist variants, pro-Donetsk ones usually don't say anything definite, stating only that "most important questions" should asked, with some of them claiming that the only "important question" is about the status of the Russian language. There was a separatist (or rather Russian irredentist) speech in front of the Donetsk Council building on March 3rd, but it was too long ago and hardly can be considered an official statement. Hellerick (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sovereign Military Order of Malta

No, this isn't a proposal to include the Sovereign Military Order of Malta as it's clearly not a sovereign state. However, it's (generally considered) a sovereign entity with 3 extraterritorial territories. I think these territories should be included under Italy and Malta's entries. I understand that extraterritorial possessions aren't to be included in the list, but these seem significant. Thoughts? [Soffredo] 21:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't include extraterritorial territory in general. The only instance I can see is the brief mention of the Holy See's territories in the entry of the Holy See (not the Italy entry), and I see no reason for that to be there really. If you could express why you feel the SMOM's territories are significant, rather than just that they are, that would help. CMD (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The SMOM is sovereign but has no actual territory besides these 3 extraterritorial properties. The SMOM is widely recognized and should be mentioned. [Soffredo] 12:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's sovereign, but not state. I'd have no particular problem noting it as a sui generis case which is not included on the main list, possibly in the section 'Criteria for inclusion'. It certainly makes more sense being here rather than on List of states with limited recognition, where it is currently mentioned. That said, I don't think the article particularly needs it either. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We mention SMOM on the note about what's not included. I just don't see the point of mentioning extraterritorial control by state and non-state entities alike. It's a slippery slope we don't have to get onto, and it's not in our description of what's included. In fact, I'd like to remove that note from the Holy See. CMD (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-state sovereign polities and entities are not listed on this page. There are plenty of other non-state sovereign entities without entries that are not listed such as the Holy Sea, North Sentinelese and other uncontacted tribes, stateless Beduen tribes, ect. These entities are categorically excluded in the various notes at the bottom of the page. There are also various quasi-soveriegn polities with varying degrees of extraterritorial control over minor portions of territory that are not mentioned here, CERN and NATO for example.XavierGreen (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is how I updated the page based on the discussion. [Soffredo] 22:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've toned that down slightly. The flag probably falls foul of wp:flagcruft, and there's no reason to bold the name. I also restored the note that it isn't included in the list. CMD (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

IAEA membership / designated name

States included have a section for their status in the United Nations system: UN member, UN observer, UN agency member, UN agency observer, and no membership at all. For Vatican City's entry, it lists that it participates in the International Atomic Energy Agency. Does it even matter? Vatican City is already a UN observer state and is in several UN agencies, why include the only somewhat related IAEA? Also removing the part saying "under the designation of 'Holy See' " in my opinion would make the list look better, as the Holy See's administration is already explained in the "Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty" section. However, I think that the "under the name of 'Chinese Taipei' " should stay in the Republic of China's entry since it shows its disputed status. [Soffredo] 18:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing the IAEA doesn't seem like a bad idea. I don't understand the distinction between Holy See and Chinese Taipei though, if anything the fact that Taiwan is disputed is even more obvious, being in a completely different section. CMD (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind both designations being removed, but I'd prefer if "Chinese Taipei" is kept since it's the ROC's designated name for many international organizations due to its disputed status. The Holy See is just the entity that administers Vatican City State. [Soffredo] 01:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't really understand Chinese Taipei being preferred to Holy See. Holy See is used far more widely than Chinese Taipei, and Vatican City much less than Taiwan/ROC. CMD (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei - An actual designated name used for the Republic of China due to its disputed status.

Holy See - The administrator of Vatican City State, not an actual designated name.

That's why I think Chinese Taipei should stay. [Soffredo] 01:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CMD in that the functions of the terms "Chinese Taipei" and "Holy See" are not materially different for our purposes. They arise out of different legal/diplomatic circumstances, but they are both used in international representation for the relevant sovereign entities/states. And I agree with CMD that "Holy See" seems to be even more important than "Chinese Taipei", since the former is used in the U.N. itself, while the latter is used mostly for sports to the best of my knowledge. GeoEvan (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason that IAEA membership is included is because it is listed as one of the organizations utilized by the Vienna formula. The IAEA functions effectively as specialized agency, but can't be formally classified as one because specialized agencies are limited to "economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related fields" (see Specialized_agency#Related_Organizations). I think it probably makes sense to base our list of organizations considered in the table on the Vienna formula. TDL (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We should remove it since it really doesn't add anything. IT's not part of the actual UN system, so it shouldn't be included. There are other "related agencies" that may include Taiwan and Kosovo but they're not on the list. [Soffredo] 20:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Federal State of Novorossiya

Should we not include this one alongside other urecognized states?--85.74.125.119 (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sealand again, really?

I moved this conversation from User talk:Chipmunkdavis#Sealand supporter-‎Benuminister

Apparently User:‎Benuminister believes that the Principality of Sealand should be on the List of sovereign states in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Apparently what I'm saying is not getting to him, and I need some source of reason to back me up. —SPESH531Other 03:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Just don't forget 2010s. It's controversial to claim it as a sovereign state I know but by the definitions of a sovereign state held here on wikipedia. This is based on the declarative theory so it has to meet the following. 1) a defined territory (their platform out in the English Channel) ; 2) a permanent population (last recorded population put it at 22 members); 3) a government (it has a king and queen as well as other members who contribute to its daily functions) and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states (this can be done by even local governments). I agree it is only however a defacto independence though since, as of 1987, it falls in British territorial waters. due to a court local court ruling it enjoys a legal loophole however which has yet to be challenged by the British authorities.Benuminister (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is the centralised discussion being held on these issues? Talk:List of sovereign states is the main article for these, it'd be a good place. Also, what are 22 people doing with their lives on a concrete pillar in the ocean? CMD (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to User:Benuminister to STOP adding Sealand to the pages I listed above, because apparently my word doesn't make any sense for him.—SPESH531Other 15:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that it doesn't matter what we think about the declarative theory of statehood. Benuminister has his own interpretation of the declarative theory - micronations often try to spin the declarative theory in their favour - but that's not good enough. No serious academic will accept micronations as states in the sense we use the term here, and they are the ones who get to decide whether the declarative theory is met or not. Kahastok talk 17:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Do not forget that the term micronation covers everything from aspirational states to publicity stunts. This in mind it is up to us a a community to separate the curds from the whey as it were and define which is which. Let me make it clear I do not think all micronation would be safely put on this list the only two I would even consider art the Hutt River Principality and The Principality of Sealand . As by definition of the Montevideo accord Sealand does meet the requirements of a nation should be included. It was discussed in this talk article from 2004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_1#Sealand and in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_3#Sealand (both of which were provided by Splesh351 to refute my arguement but support it's existence under declaratory theory)> I would argue that if Sealand would not be on this article then things like ISIL and the Donesk republic should not as well as they did not have embassies with any other recognized state. So I will revert all changes my by Splesh351 until an argument why these entities should exist and not Sealand.

Conversely if we cannot agree whether these should be kept I would recommend a list of states claiming sovereignty should be added. This area would contain both Sealand and the regions mentioned above.Benuminister (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all its S PE sh 531 not S PLE sh 351. Secondly, when you are deciding an issue, you keep the original status quo, not the one you want. Thirdly, where is a source that says Sealand is a sovereign state? Also your argument with Somaliland is invalid because they have a consulate level representation with Ethiopia. Fourthly, you may want to look up micronation. Anything considered a micronation is not put on these lists, mircostates are (like the Vatican, San Marion, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and Andorra). Also your argument about Bangsamoro is invalid because they had control of LAND! Not a man made object, like SMOM does. And I could go out to sea, hire a comapny to make a little man-made station in international waters, and claim it as a new country--but its NOT!—SPESH531Other 02:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I have done WP:3RR within the course of 2 days, I am done reverting until this gets sorted out. I'm not getting blocked for your thick-headedness. (And by the way, micronation is not the same as microstate.)—SPESH531Other 03:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I must apologize for the misspelling of your username there Spesh531, I do not mean this to be an argument as more of a discussion (plus I was in a rush at the moment of). Since you wanted a source that says Sealnd an sovereign entity,just look at p270 of Globalization, 3rd edition: Theory and Practice. Google's book search of it [41] and this wired article on it [42]. Now I mentioned the Montevideo accords earlier I will concede this argument of Sealand's nationhood hinges on the HM Fort Roughs being considered territory. Since it is man made this is currently up to reader interpretation.

Now I did not mention Somaliland in this part of the discussion but in another chat all together. I will concede I did not know it had consular status in other countries. If I said microstate at some point in another conversation I meant micronation (however the difference in definition of those two things lays mostly in legitimacy). Bangsamoro was mentioned, for the readers of this chat, for that fact that it did not have a permanent population, rather it was a rebellion. I was referencing it in accordance to the earlier comment that it was a nation claiming independence much like Sealand is. Also you saying something is not true without your own proof makes it as valid as you claim my comments are.

Also to be clear I'm not trying to edit this list rather the Sovereign states by year lists- Benuminister (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'm getting a little annoyed more easily lately, didn't mean to take it out on you. Anyway, yes to your last statement, but this is where a discussion will occur. You can't exclaim Sealand sovereign, and then just try and find links. You would also need to find more then one link (that most users have access to). The first link I don;t have access, and the second links exclaims this, :"He [Roy Bates] got away with it, too - sort of. Officially, the UK doesn't recognize Sealand, but except for a few dustups now and then, the government has left the strange little fief alone." My personal belief (just a thought, not an argument for or against the discussion) is that it's not necessary and it is a waste of time and money to attempt to work something out with Bates. I also just interpreted this article explaining how the people of the former military base seem somewhat terroristic, firing "warning shots" at passer-byers. Back to the process of adding Sealand, it takes a lot longer then 1 day to figure the question. I and several users brought up the case of the Cook Islands and Niue, and that took well over a month (for the discussion that actually lasted.) Also if you are going to add it in Sovereign states by year lists and it still exists, that means it would also need to appear in this article (the fact that ISIL, Donetsk, Lugansk, and New Russia are in the 2010 list, I don't know why). There needs to be a general consensus before you add something.—SPESH531Other 04:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I was only considering it and The Hutt River Principality. Honestly the update only comes after doing some research on other minor nations in history. I'm trying to summarize the 1940s right now into a single article as well. I'm trying also to make sure that some nations appear throught the lists instead of disappearing like Couto Misto does halfway through.Benuminister (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

These are not "minor states". They are micronations. It would grossly misrepresent the bulk of the sources to suggest otherwise. The difference between a micronation and a state is well-understood and accepted.

If we were going by the book, the fact remains that they fail the inclusion criteria. We either need sources demonstrating that they are (or were) often regarded as states according to the declarative theory (and that does not mean, I went through the criteria and decided they do), or sources demonstrating formal diplomatic recognition from a UN member state. We have neither in either case. Kahastok talk 17:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

West Papua

The Republic of West Papua meets the constitutive theory of statehood as it is recognized by Vanuatu. As such i have added it to the page, supported by sources. I have also added it and started a discussion on the Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition page.XavierGreen (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 June 2014

Please delete the redirect page "list of Nations" in order to create a new wiki under the same title. I am using current wiki pages including "list of sovereign states", "list of stateless nations", and other wikis of lists of various indigenous ethnic groups in the Americas, Africa, and Australia to create a comprehensive list of nations. Nations differ from states in that they are a group of people with a unique language, heritage, shared history, and indigenous homeland. Wikipedia currently has no page detailing the various nations of the world, which also differ significantly from ethnic groups. Wikipedia should have a page for a comprehensive list of nations. 69.86.101.218 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, but you will need a consensus for this before I can lift the protection. I suggest starting by advertising this discussion on the talk pages of the lists you mention to see what editors there think. You could also advertise this discussion at the WikiProjects listed in the templates at the top of the page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Niue and the Cook Islands

After much discussion a few months ago it was established (with sources)that Niue and the Cook Islands do not fall under the criterion of declarative theory of statehood. Since they never declared that. Why was the language confirming that removed from the article since? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the removed sentence. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Audit needed

This article looks like it could use an audit.

I came here after seeing this edit to the Cook Islands article.

This article says that the 206 states listed are divided into three categories: 193 member states, two observer states, and 11 other states. However,

• The "UN member states or observer states" group in the table is divided according to the "Membership within the UN System" column into the following groups by label:
  • UN member state (I didn't count them)
  • Blank/unlabeled: 8 entries (colored white which, according to the legend, means that they are member states) It looks like these are intended as redirect hints, but they include Abkhazia, Cook Islands, Niue, Northern Cyprus, Taiwan which don't seem to be UN member states.
  • observer state: 2 (Vatican City and Palestine)

Also, from the info in the edit to the Cook Islands article linked above, there is a consensus in that article that the Cook Islands are not entirely sovereign.

I didn't spend a lot of time trying to figure out the tricky hidden content in some table cells which seems intended to coerce the sorting, but it looked to me as if the the grouping identifier and redirect rows in the table sort confusingly. Perhaps the sorting could be better coerced using the {{sort}} template. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The redirects are for non-UN states, they lead to the entry lower down in the table. There was consensus that in some cases the Cook Islands and Niue functioned as sovereign states, which is why they are on this list. There is indeed attempts to coerce sorting, if you think you can improve it please go ahead. CMD (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk & Luhansk

The Donetsk People's Republic has declared independence on 7 April 2014. The Luhansk People's Republic has declared independence on 27 April 2014. They've both had referendums yesterday, showing support for their declarations of independence. They also control territory, and it seems that they recognize eachother. Both states are receiving a lot of attention. I think they should be included in the list. Thoughts? [Soffredo] 11:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait a bit longer to see if the two also want to become part of Russia or remain independent.At least in Luhansk they are already thinking about holding a referendum to join the Russian Federation. A different scenario could be that the two merge and form a new state called "New Russia",so I think we should wait until there is further clarity about their future.Engel1983 (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There are many ambiguities what the separatists have actually declared. In other hand, the question in referendum has been dubious (see: Donetsk status referendum, 2014#Question). I support opinion, that we should wait for same clarification of the situation.

For the benefit of those who may not be aware of what is required for entities to be included according to the inclusion criteria set out in the article, the rule is that we need evidence either:

• That the putative state considers itself to be a sovereign state, and
• That the putative state is often regarded as a state according to the declarative theory. This means that we actually have to have evidence that reliable sources - excluding those affiliated to the group concerned - have assessed the situation against the declarative theory and that a state exists. It should go without saying (but on the basis of previous discussion does not) that Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources, and their judgement as to whether the declarative theory is met is insufficient.

Or:

• That the putative state has been recognised as a sovereign state by at least one member state of the United Nations. So, recognising each other does not count.

Soffredo has started numerous similar discussions over recent months, and these criteria have been pointed out every time. It is difficult to believe that s/he does not already know that the sources thus far provided are not anything like enough for these groups to be included. Kahastok talk 17:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not ambiguous any more, both seperatist governments in Donetsk and Luhansk have declared independence.[[43]]. I can provide more sources if necessary.XavierGreen (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to the Donetsk People's Republic, I edited references, but in what ways does it satisfy the 4th condition of the Declarative Theory of Statehood? (a capacity to enter into relations with other states). It doesn't have any relations with any other state!Mondolkiri1talk 03:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair it's capacity to, not having actual relations. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

At the very least we should see how this pans out before adding. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess only if Russia is suicidal, it will also annex Donetsk!(I hope I'm not violating any Wikipedia rules by writing this opinion in the Talk page)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Russia annexes Crimea,just its people have right for self-determination and they of course don't want to be regularly killed by Right Sector and other nationalist movements. Russia doesn't want to have more problems in their foreign affairs, and it will be very hard for Russian government to decide will they "annex" Donetsk and Luhansk. It's only my opinion, but it seems Donetsk and Luhansk satisfy one (or more) criteria for inclusion: they have determined territories and boundaries, they have population and government. We can change the list data in any moment if it will be necessary. What can you say? Why it musn't be included? Only because it is not clear whatwillhappen in future? The data must be at this moment! Crimea,for example, was included for only 4 days! User02062000 (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You cite "they have determined territories and boundaries, they have population and government" as evidence that they meet one criterion for inclusion.

But that is not evidence that any criterion is met. That they may have such features is not important per se, if no source brings them together to suggest that a state in fact exists.

In accordance with WP:NOR, the rule is that they must be often regarded as meeting the declarative theory. That means that we cannot say that a state exists according to the declarative theory unless a reliable source has actually examined the evidence and concluded that a state exists according to the declarative theory. The whole point of WP:NOR is that Wikipedia should never be the first independent source to come to such a conclusion, as suggested by some above.

Crimea was included for a day, because it was recognised by Russia, and thus met the other criterion (recognition as a sovereign state by a UN member state). Kahastok talk 21:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Kahastok. The same should go for List of states with limited recognition, where Donetsk keeps getting added. TDL (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, then let's remove Donetsk and Luhansk from that page! User02062000 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In the DPR problem is that we don’t know what it control. Media reports that they control same cities and towns, but in other hand in these cities and towns offices subordinates to the Ukrainian Government are still operate. On the other hand in some areas under control of Ukrainian forces DRP is still operate. In Donetsk (and Lugansk) we have an overlapping control of both sides of this conflict – only certain places (such buildings) in cities and towns are de facto controlled by one side (DPR or (pro-)Ukrainian authorities), and all other areas are de facto uncontrolled. Aotearoa (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, here you are a [44] link (russian) proving that President of the partially recognized South Ossetia recognizes LPR. I think now we can include it in List of sovereign states as it meets 2nd criteria, and put it into some other lists in the category together with NKR and PMR. User02062000 (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the link, but it doesn't change things. The rule is "recognised as a sovereign state by at least one UN member state". South Ossetia is not a UN member state, so it is insufficient. Kahastok talk 18:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I haven't looked at the criteria carefullu, sorry. User02062000 (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

But we have Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh? [Soffredo] 07:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Soffredo. NKR and PMR have the same status as LPR and DPR. Of course, Luhansk and Donetsk have only few months of history and it can't be compared to NKR and PMR, but they meet the same criteria. I think they can't be considered non-states, they have already been added to russian list of unrecognized states. Anyway, we can remove them if their status will change. User02062000 (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

I found a source calling the Donetsk People's Republic a country. "Ukraine crisis: A country is born in Donetsk... but not for long" Thought editors here won't agree to add it right away, I thought this article was worth sharing for when we finally agree to add these two partially-recognized states. [Soffredo] 04:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

ISIS yet again

An editor is edit warring the Islamic State into this article, and has made it clear that he does not wish to "waste time discussing this". In the view of editors here, does it qualify this time? Kahastok talk 20:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are the sources I've provided:

• Cole Bunzel (January 30, 2014). "The Islamic State of Disunity: Jihadism Divided". Jihadica. Retrieved July 3, 2014. Nonetheless, the fighting has aggravated intra-jihadi tensions as the ongoing hostilities focus attention on ISIS's unique claim to statehood and the inviolable sovereignty that this implies.
• Jonathan Spyer (February 23, 2014). "Behind the lines: Holding back al-Qaida". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved July 3, 2014. It has also not escaped Israel's attention that a de facto sovereign jihadi-controlled zone now exists in eastern Syria's Raqqa province, stretching into western Anbar province in Iraq. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "How real is ISIS' statehood bid in the Middle East?". Al Arabiya. July 2, 2014. Retrieved July 3, 2014. But, they have as good a claim to statehood in the area as either the governments of Iraq or Syria

Now I don't get why the Islamic State wouldn't be included since we have sources. [Soffredo] 20:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Because they don't say or suggest that IS is either "often regarded as satisfying the declarative theory of statehood" or "recognised as a sovereign state by at least one UN member state". Kahastok talk 20:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

But they're sources showing that the Islamic State is sovereign. I don't get why we can't just include it. [Soffredo] 21:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

We have criteria for inclusion, so that we can be clear about what we mean by "sovereign". For example, all US states are formally "sovereign". I do not believe it is sensible to abandon the inclusion criteria in favour of listing anything that anyone considers "sovereign". Kahastok talk 21:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well we're talking about the Islamic State, which is an unrecognized de facto sovereign state, not a federal state. [Soffredo] 21:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It could be a legitimate inclusion since it is a self declared state with no international recognition. Does it have a defined territory? And a population? Probably. And it has declared independence. Now I don't agree with the Montevideo thing since it has only been recognized by a few states in North and South America, but if Montevideo is the reason for inclusion..... So be it! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that say that it meets the standard of Montevideo? Note that we as editors are not allowed to interpret Montevideo for ourselves, so the source actually has to mention the declarative theory or Montevideo. Saying, "Does it have a defined territory? And a population? Probably. And it has declared independence." is not enough without such a source. Soffredo knows this, as we've been through this many times with him. Kahastok talk 06:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The Al Arabyia article describes what a sovereign state is and how the Islamic State is one. What more do you want for its inclusion? [Soffredo] 15:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A source that says that it meets Montevideo or the declarative theory, perhaps? Or evidence that it has been recognised by a UN member state? The Al-Arabiya source does not do this. That shouldn't be a secret, given how many times it's been explained to you. Kahastok talk 21:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a vote between editors similar to when Niue and the Cook Islands were added? [Soffredo] 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should have a vote, either on inclusion for the IS or on the details of the inclusion criteria, whichever senior editors think is most appropriate. I feel it is contrary to WP:COMMONSENSE to exclude the IS solely on the basis of sources not making explicit reference to the terms "declarative theory" or "Montevideo". Senior editors' efforts to maintain a cool-headed compliance to the criteria is much appreciated, but it seems to me that rejection of the IS from the list no longer has a clear consensus. GeoEvan (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with having the vote, as I suggested it before. We should also have a poll for the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, which have managed to gain limited recognition. [Soffredo] 05:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Being a sovereign state is a Big Deal. This list is intended to include only those states that have a clear and genuine claim to sovereign status under international law. There are two ways that this are measured - the declarative and constitutive theories.

If we adopt a standard lower than that, then we indulge in original research by claiming as "states" entities that fail to meet the standard set by reliable sources.

We cannot claim that a state meets the declarative theory if we do not have any evidence that anyone else in the world thinks it meets the declarative theory. If we were to allow ISIS, Donetsk or Luhansk based on current evidence, we would be the first independent source anywhere to conclude that they meet the declarative theory. WP:NOR says we can't be the first to come to such a conclusion - and that surely applies particularly when the conclusion is as Big a Deal as this one is.

I'd finally note what TDL wrote here, and note that I agree with it. Kahastok talk 20:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article which examines ISIS's claims to statehood and concludes "However you approach the question of this group’s statehood, the answer is almost assuredly, no, the Islamic State is not a state." TDL (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Now you can have this article explaining what a state is, and how the Islamic State is both a state and a rebel group. [Soffredo] 23:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting one that does address the issue head on, but they never actually say ISIS is a state. About as close as they get is "they have as good a claim to statehood in the area as either the governments of Iraq or Syria", but they also say "Syrian or Iraqi governments represent states in a U.N. council meeting much more than they represent actual existing states in Mosul, in Tikrit, in Fallujah, or in ar-Raqqah." So saying ISIS is more of a state than a non-existing state isn't all that conclusive. TDL (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A vote should still occur for the Islamic State, the Donetsk People's Republic, and the Lugansk People's Republic. We have sources calling them states and the latter two have limited recognition. [Soffredo] 15:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

...by which you mean they have been recognised by South Ossetia, whose claim to sovereignty is itself mostly dismissed, and which is irrelevant to the criteria in place.

I do not believe it is appropriate to have a vote as to whether to follow basic policy or not. Kahastok talk 16:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Future vote

State	Claims statehood?	Recognition?	Declarative Theory requirements				Additional sources referencing sovereignty
			Defined territory	Permanent population	Government	Capacity to enter into relations
Islamic State (ISIL)
Donetsk People's Republic (DNR)
Lugansk People's Republic (LNR)

A future vote should take place between editors on if we should include the ISIL, DNR, and/or LNR (just like we did for Niue and the Cook Islands). I've added this table showing how these three states have fulfilled the declarative theory. [Soffredo] 16:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A more accurate table per the inclusion criteria would look like this:

Claimed state	Claims statehood and sourced as satisfying the declarative theory	Recognition by a UN member state
ISIS
Donetsk
Luhansk

Unless you've actually managed to come up with a source that claims that any of these meet the declarative theory, unlike the last few dozen times you've brought these up?

As I noted above, I object to the notion that we should have a vote as to whether to follow WP:NOR or not. Kahastok talk 16:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe have a vote whether to follow WP:COMMONSENSE as well? Also, you could look at the sources for ISIL as one of them explains what a state is. [Soffredo] 16:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Common sense would seem to me to say that in highly-controversial situations like the ones we're discussing, we're best off applying the letter and spirit of the rules we have as rigorously as we can. There is no conflict between them: both hold that we can't claim that any purported state meets the declarative theory unless an external source has already done that.

I note that we already have source for ISIS that discusses it explicitly in terms of the declarative theory here. It says that it does not meet those rules. Common sense would say to me that we should not overrule it based on nothing but our own amateur interpretations of international law. Kahastok talk 17:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll just go ahead and start the poll. [Soffredo] 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

WESTERN NIGERIA

I Tom991 (Tom) removed the section on Western Nigeria late this afternoon on 5/23 at 5:39 PM EST. When has there been a nation called Western Nigeria? I only know of Nigeria! thanks, tom991 (talk)